Is this not libellous?
From the Melanie Phillips blog, she reprints a few pieces of half-research and insinuation about the Arab connections of Jimmy Carter (which appear to be that some rich Saudis have contributed to Carter's foundation) and James Baker (who of course has Saudi connections; he's a Bush family associate for God's sake). However, Mel adds a specific comment of her own:
With such connections making them the kept creatures of the Arab world, it is therefore no surprise that they are intent on smoothing the path to Israel’s destruction.
How is this not libellous? The accusations that Jimmy Carter and James Baker are "the kept creatures of the Arab World" are serious enough, but the claim that both men are "intent on smoothing the path to Israel's destruction" is as far as I can see baseless, is clearly a very serious charge that would damage their reputation if it was believed. I really don't see how this can be characterised as "comment"; they certainly look like two factual claims and even if "kept creatures" can be defended as metaphorical, the accusation that both men are intent on seeing Israel destroyed surely can't; the word "intent" doesn't have any sense which doesn't mean "intentional".
I really don't think that this is the first time this sort of thing has happened. Surely sooner or later someone is going to lose patience and sue?
I wonder whether she is so far gone that no court would believe anything she said could damage your reputation - much like David Icke.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe you're right, but I suspect that Mr Charles White QC acting for the plaintiff (say) would probably make quite a lot out of the fact that she still has a column in the Daily Mail.
ReplyDeleteHow well known is Mel in the US? And wouldn't the sight of US pols trying to shut down a British journalist (lets face it, that's how it would be portrayed) lead to large numbers of demagogues in the US (where the libel laws, I gather, are less severe) repeating the claims. Melanie Phillips accusing someone of anti-semitism isn't news. James Baker or Jimmy Carter suing her would be.
ReplyDeleteHow well known is Mel in the US? And wouldn't the sight of US pols trying to shut down a British journalist (lets face it, that's how it would be portrayed) lead to large numbers of demagogues in the US (where the libel laws, I gather, are less severe) repeating the claims. Melanie Phillips accusing someone of anti-semitism isn't news. James Baker or Jimmy Carter suing her would be.
ReplyDeletethey certainly look like two factual claims
ReplyDeleteAn English Graduate Writes: one factual claim, I'd say. There are two levels of 'comment' here. As you say, the main function of the piece is to set out two assertions and make a connection between them -
[known fact 1]
{new material in the form of logical connection}
[known fact 2]
and read that way it's indefensible, on the level of "With [Prince Philip being shapeshifting reptilian] {it's therefore no surprise that} [he had Diana bumped off]".
The first assertion is more complex than it looks, though. "With such connections making them the kept creatures of the Arab world": if you look at it, this is actually a 'comment' in its own right, in the form of an inference. So the structure of the statement is actually
[known fact 1: 'such connections']
{inference: 'making them...'}
{logical connection: 'no surprise'}
[known fact 2]
I can't see any way out of "they are intent on smoothing the path to Israel’s destruction", though. She'd never get away with that in print. I never thought I'd say this, but bring back John Junor - "might such connections put them in the pocket of certain middle-eastern despotisms? And might this perhaps incline them towards working for the destruction of a certain democracy in the region? I do not know. But I think we should be told."
Politically vile, but legally fireproof. That's proper journalism.
Incidentally, is there any chance of changing the title of this blog to something shorter? I've had to adjust the width of my RSS feed window to accommodate it (I thought "Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry" was bad...).
ReplyDeleteSurely, since changing the title of his blog is neither a pie nor connected to his working hours, D2 can't sue me for suggesting that he's against it. (That sentence needs work.)
ReplyDeleteI'll do that over the new year, since I now have worked out what RSS is and newly appreciate how convenient it is. I'm leaving the slogan up for the minute because I am being accused of having come up with negativism as a "post hoc rationalisation" and the slogan rather proves that I have always been against everything.
ReplyDeleteThat "New Blogger" thing can eff off though.
Her husband, the Torygraph's legal correspondent, ought to know a thing or two about libel (or at least know who to ask).
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Ms Phillips feels she is safe because she knows (probably without having seen the film) that Michael Moore alleged Bush-Saudi connections in Fahrenheit 9/11 - though Moore did it, with respect to Phil, the Junor way: he just showed footage of Bush and Saudis and invited the audience to join the dots (if any). Phillips, of course, goes further, and, I think, makes several mistakes. The reason politicians like Carter have foundations is that they can raise money which does not go to them personally: Carter is either not kept at all, or if he is, then he is guilty of financial mismanagement and probably fraud, which would be of great interest to US newspapers, the Federal authorities and the IRS. (From which, I think we can safely conclude that he isn't personally profiting.) Second, 'kept' is too strong in the circumstances: it implies more than skimming extra cash in the Neil Hamilton manner, but of both Baker and Carter being merely puppets of a foreign state. Lastly, there is the allegation that both men wish Israel's destruction, which may be impossible to disprove philosophically (in the sense of "Oh yes, Carter may have performed actions X, Y, and Z which were beneficial to Israel, but that was only so he could disguise his true purpose!") but should be falsifiable to the satisfaction of a jury.
However, I can't get her blog; the connection keeps failing. (This may be temporary.) The Mail archive of her pieces is here. The one you cite is not included. They've either pulled it, or never published it - and may never have been offered it. Sueing the Mail may earn money. Sueing Phillips is less likely to. So I think Matthew is right.
I heard him (Mr. Carter) saying at least a dozen times on various shows that inside Israel proper Jewish and non-Jewish citizens are given the same treatment under the law. That is an obvious lie. He must be a kept creature of some seriously pro-Israeli Arabs.
ReplyDeletePolitically vile, but legally fireproof. That's proper journalism.
ReplyDeletePaul Dacre has good lawyers. Still, as much as I'd like to see Mad Mel sprayed with manure, hitting her in the bank balance may be more painful to her, since she's the embodiment of the columnist-as-escort.
I am an attorney in the U.S., and I doubt that Carter or Baker have even considered suing, as no libel suit for such statements would make any headway in the U.S.. Not only would they have a much higher burden of proof as quintessential "public figures" under New York Times v. Sullivan, (requiring proof of "actual malice"), but the defamation (if any) would be "per quod" as opposed to "per se." That is, the statement does not fall into any of the traditional categories (e.g., having a loathsome disease, or being a thief), so damages are not presumed and special damages need to be pleaded and proven. And, without actual damages (in most states) no punitive or exemplary damages would be recoverable. Further, and certainly in this country, I suspect very few people could be found whose opinions of these well-known persons would be swayed one way or the other by the subject statement. Carter and Baker have long been considered and called "arabists" in many quarters.
ReplyDeleteI have read equally extreme statements as this in American publications and blogs, which are no doubt available on the internet overseas. Callan is correct that any action in the U.K. would be wildly counter-productive and would likely harm their reputations far more than the actual statement.
Indeed, I found it a bit surprising that the comment of this columnist, who is unknown to me, even elicited the idea of a libel suit. Most politicians in this country have been blithely accused of far worse--for example Bush and Cheney have frequently been accused of being complicit in, and even planning 9/11. (It is now clear that this administration is far too incompetent to have pulled it off). In this country, such statements are generally considered hyperbole at best, but more likely ravings descending into mere abuse.
Lastly, and on an unrelated matter, I am unaware of any specific law or legal doctrine making Carter's statement regarding the legal status of Israeli Arabs incorrect. Certainly there are Arabs in the Israeli Parliament, and Arabs who are Israeli citizens vote. If ABB1 (who is apparently calling Carter a liar--defamatory?) can point me to any specific Israeli statute or legal ruling that makes Carter's statement "an obvious lie" I would be interested in the citation. While I have read much concerning alleged inaccuracies in Carter's book, that is not one I have seen in the press.
Just an addendum--
ReplyDeleteHow sticky the defamation question is in the U.S. is illustrated in this libel case against the author of Freakonomics, another subject of this blog. The court decision can be found on the plaintiff's web site: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Lott_v._Levitt_2007.pdf