We’re Being Sued By Hamas UK
Last Friday, in the wake of a closely argued debate about whether Mohammed Sawalha, the President of the British Muslim Initiative, had used the phrase “Evil Jew” or “Jewish Lobby” in a speech, Harry’s Place received a letter. The letter is from Dean and Dean, a firm of solicitors who are acting for Mr Sawalha. Mr Sawalha has demanded that we take down certain articles from Harry’s Place, and publish an apology “in the attached wording”.
The solicitors have failed to attach the apology that Mr Sawalha insists we publish. That omission matters little, as we have no intention of apologising to him at all, nor of taking down any article.
We have responded to Mr Sawalha’s solicitors, through Mishcon de Reya, who are acting for us.
Mr Sawalha claims that we have “chosen a malevolent interpretation of a meaningless word”. In fact, we did no more than translate a phrase which appeared in an Al Jazeera report of Mr Sawalha’s speech. When Al Jazeera changed that phrase from “Evil Jew” to “Jewish Lobby”, we reported that fact, along with the statement that it had been a typographical error.
Mr Sawalha says that the attribution of the phrase “Evil Jew” to him implies that he is “anti-semitic and hateful”. Notably, he does not take issue with our reporting of the revelation, made in a Panorama documentary in 2006, that he is a senior activist in the clerical fascist terrorist organisation, Hamas. The BBC report disclosed that Mr Sawalha “master minded much of Hamas’ political and military strategy” and in London “is alleged to have directed funds, both for Hamas’ armed wing, and for spreading its missionary dawah”.
Hamas is an organisation which recently took power in Gaza by means of a violent coup, in which they consolidated their power by systematically murdering their Palestinian political opponents. It operates by deliberately targetting innocent Israel civilians in terrorist attacks: a tactic which it has used to stymie any prospect of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestine.
Hamas is both racist and genocidal. Its foundational document, the Hamas Covenant is little more than a racist diatribe against Jews. It claims that Jews have used their money to control the world media. It claims that Jews engineered revolutions, in particular “the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there”. Jews are also said to control “imperialistic countries”. Jews are also claimed to have instigated the First World War, in order to destroy the Caliphate, and the Second World War, in order to make money from arms dealing. Indeed, “[t]here is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it”. Jews are said to operate by forming “secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions”,
The Hamas Covenant also states:
The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
…
Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. “May the cowards never sleep.”
This is the Covenant to which a member of Hamas signs up when they join. To have joined such an organisation means that you are a racist.
A member of Hamas has no reputation to defend.
Mr Sawalha has been the prime mover in a number of Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood associated projects. He is President of the British Muslim Initiative. He is the past President of the Muslim Association of Britain. He was the founder of IslamExpo, and is registered as the holder of the IslamExpo domain name. He is also a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque.
The British Muslim Initiative has co-organised with Liberty, Britain’s most prominent civil liberties campaigning group, a National Rally to Defend Freedom of Religion, Conscience and Thought. Speakers included Ken Livingstone, the Tory Party Vice Chair, Sayeeda Warsi, and the shadow Tory Attorney General, Dominic Grieve MP, and Andrew Stunell MP, the Liberal Democrat Spokesman on Community and Local Government.
All these people spoke on the platform of a group founded by a man who has been identified as a senior Hamas activist.
IslamExpo is also organised by the British Muslim Initiative, and was founded by Mr Sawalha. In past years, various government ministers, including Tessa Jowell, have spoken at IslamExpo. This year, a government minister, Stephen Timms, will be taking part in this event.
Stephen Timms will be speaking on the platform of a group founded by a man who has been identified as a senior Hamas activist.
Mr Sawalha is a trustee of Finsbury Park Mosque. The Muslim Association of Britain was assisted in their takeover of the Mosque from the jihadist cleric, Abu Hamza, by the Metropolitan Police. In other words, a mosque that was once controlled by an Al Qaeda supporter, is now controlled by a man who has been identified as a senior Hamas activist. Can you forsee how this is going to turn out?
Mr Sawalha is a man who prefers to conduct political debate by means of litigation. He hopes to bully those who oppose his vicious theocratic politics with threats of writs. I suppose that I should be relieved. Hamas’ usual technique is to murder those with whom it disagrees.
Mr Sawalha’s British Muslim Initiative put out a press release on 2 July 2008, describing us as “racist”, “underhand”, “plainly lying” and “pure evil”. We are none of these things. Yet, instead of seeking to sue Mr Sawalha and his organisations for the serious defamation of our characters which he has circulated, or demanding an apology, we took his arguments on.
Mr Sawalha operates by invective and legal threat, because he has no other answer to the case which we have advanced. This is the context within which he expects people to attend IslamExpo and other British Muslim Initiative organised events. How can there be genuine debate in these circumstances?
One final point. It used to be the case that groups like the Muslim Association of Britain and its sister organisations, the British Muslim Initative and the Cordoba Foundation, would angrily deny that the were the British franchise of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, so it seems, they’re happy that the close links between these groups, and their members, be known. What Mr Sawalha is objecting to is not the reporting of his activism in Hamas. It is the suggestion that he is a racist. That is very telling.
Yesterday I argued that Hamas/the Muslim Brotherhood are likely to start representing themselves as the moderate wing of Islamism, and a bulwark against jihadism. That promise is backed by a threat: unless we co-operate with the Muslim Brotherhood, we’ll have to deal with Al Qaeda. The presence of government ministers and senior opposition figures on various British Muslim Initiative linked platforms suggests, either that they have successfully rebranded as the Islamists that the West can do business with, or that these senior politicians have been incredibly badly briefed.
The official thinking behind outsourcing terror prevention to terrorist-linked groups must be that many Muslims have an affinity for political violence that can only be kept in check by certain authentically vicious Islamists, who have agreed to behave well within the United Kingdom. That is precisely the thinking which underpinned the so-called “covenant of security” offered by certain jihadist groups in the 1990s. That covenant was quickly torn up, and the radicalised followers of the preachers of hate became terrorists: murderers of Britons of all faiths.
To make the same mistake again, by treating with Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood linked groups, would be a disaster for this country, and also for the vast majority of British Muslims who are not terrorists, and who are likely to be the primary victims of the Islamists in this country, as they are abroad. We all deserve better.
If Mr Sawalha persists in attempting to silence us with this desperate legal suit, we will need your help.
We won’t be able to stand up to them alone.
UPDATE
If this is the same Dean and Dean that is acting for Mr Sawalha, then we’re in for a bumpy ride:
“The multiplicity of proceedings, appeals and applications is the product of what I consider to be an abuse of the process of the court by the proposed applicants, Dean and Dean”.
In addition, Mr Sawalha he may be in for a nasty surprise when he receives his bill from them.
Best to let it lie, Mr Sawalha.
(Hat tip: David Boothroyd)
UPDATE 2
More on Dean and Dean’s zaniness in the Guardian.
(Hat tip, d.z. bodenberg)
UPDATE 3
More Dean and Dean. Poor Mr Sawalha!
UPDATE 4
The Ministry of Truth has done some very deep digging on Medyan Dairieh, the journalist who interviewed Sawalha for Al Jazeera.
It has uncovered some questions which really ought to be answered.
Comments
| 10 July 2008, 10:51 am |
Yep, I’ll give a donation. Perhaps you can get Liberty onside?
| 10 July 2008, 10:53 am |
All sounds very dramatic David, but I don’t think think this will go much further.
As regards the Rally to Defend Freedom of Religion, Conscience and Thought - it sounds reasonable enough. Of course, if a rally is large, or at least reasonably so, you can’t really expect to agree with everybody on it. Moreover, it would be unfair to paint all the Muslims attending as Islamists. British Muslims do demonstrate yes, as Muslims, but HP must not fall into the trap of assuming or suggesting that they are all in league with Islamists. There is danger that this then, ironically, develops into a conspiracy theory itself.
Of course, it would be possible to organise a different type rally to defend Freedom of Expression etc. Indeed this was done a while back by Peter Risdon I think. Unfortunately that particular rally only drew about 400 people as I recall.
| 10 July 2008, 10:53 am |
Count me in.
| 10 July 2008, 10:56 am |
Welcome to Canada.
http://ezralevant.com/2008/07/ive-been-invited-to-speak-to-c.html
You might ask Ezra for some tips on how to fight back.
| 10 July 2008, 10:58 am |
If he didn’t sue Panorama,which allege that he is a terrorist organiser then hopefully it won’t go much further.
Best set up a Paypal account all the same.
Thats PayPal, as opposed to Interpal.
| 10 July 2008, 10:59 am |
Count me in for helping.
| 10 July 2008, 11:01 am |
Count me in.
| 10 July 2008, 11:12 am |
And me
| 10 July 2008, 11:17 am |
Happy to help in whatever way I can
| 10 July 2008, 11:26 am |
I think I could get a very well regarded professor of Arabic poetry to provide an authoritative translation/interpretation if necessary.
| 10 July 2008, 11:36 am |
I’ll help too. Setup a Paypal account, I’ll stuff some cash your way.
What about the solicitor, Dean & Dean, though, who thinks the best way to assist their client is to follow through with such crap, rather than just patting them on the head and telling them to calm down? Would you ever use them for anything?
You’re a lawyer. How does this nonsense get so far?
| 10 July 2008, 11:38 am |
In.
| 10 July 2008, 11:52 am |
I’m in with a donation if required. Keep us informed.
| 10 July 2008, 11:54 am |
I promise any help and support I can give.
| 10 July 2008, 11:54 am |
Mr Sawalha takes offence about perceived notions of anti-semitism. If he is so offended why doesn’t he issue a statement stating that all Jews and Muslims are equals? If he can’t bring himself to praise Jews as being equal to Palestinians and Muslims that kind of damages his stance I would have thought.
| 10 July 2008, 11:58 am |
Happy to help with a (perforce) small donation.
| 10 July 2008, 11:59 am |
Much as I hate enriching British libel lawyers, count me in for a few pounds.
| 10 July 2008, 12:00 pm |
Hmm, Dean and Dean solicitors? You mean these people: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1513.html
| 10 July 2008, 12:06 pm |
As a Tory it is great to hear those on the left with the balls to stand up to Islamist bullying for once. Good luck and keep up the blog!
| 10 July 2008, 12:12 pm |
David: Dean & Dean sound lovely. According to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/26/law.discriminationatwork
they “represent(s) Middle Eastern governments.” I wonder which ones.
| 10 July 2008, 12:23 pm |
That letter from Dean and Dean, with its missing apology template, missing apostrophe and erroneous reference to a “Dave T”, gives the impression of having been dashed out in great haste on a very limited budget. Maybe Sawalha isn’t serious.
| 10 July 2008, 12:25 pm |
I don’t know if it matters anymore, but the word translated as evil (wabeel - W, B, Y, L) uses the same Arabic letters as the word for lobby (loobi - L, W, B, Y). The usual word for evil in Arabic is “soo”, so they may well have used “wabeel” as a play on words. But, if the phrase did literally read out as “Jewish evil”, I don’t think they have any case, since what was alleged was technically true, even if the play on words would have been lost to anyone not familiar with modern media Arabic (since loobi obviously isn’t Arabic).
| 10 July 2008, 12:27 pm |
Count me in too.
“What about the solicitor, Dean & Dean, though, who thinks the best way to assist their client is to follow through with such crap, rather than just patting them on the head and telling them to calm down? Would you ever use them for anything? “
Oh, I think by the time this is over, anyone who Googles them will get a full picture of their worth.
| 10 July 2008, 12:27 pm |
What Mr Sawalha is objecting to is not the reporting of his activism in Hamas. It is the suggestion that he is a racist. That is very telling.
A bit like Redgrave vs. Socialist Organiser, when Vanessa Redgrave (as most well-known member of the then “Workers’ Revolutionary Party”) sued for libel over the suggestion that her party was “like the Moonies” and not over claims (later proven) that her political outfit was funded from Tripoli and Baghdad. http://www.workersliberty.org/node/997
| 10 July 2008, 12:33 pm |
Alas the socialrepublic’s millions aren’t what they used to be, but what i can spare is yours. Hit them right in the ovaries, Comrade T
| 10 July 2008, 12:33 pm |
Sawalha obviously regrets that he doesn’t have an Islamic state to make people who disagree with him really suffer!
This moderate/extremist stuff. Yuk. Reminds of the James Bond movie where one type says, “I abhor violence myself” pause, “But my friend here, Mr…he’s…”
What’s with this bogus rally to Defend Freedom of Religion, Conscience and Thought? With the British Muslim Initiative trying to close down freedom of thought from its foundation, and the rest of the platform being a bunch of shifty bowers-and-scrapers to religious bullies to say the least.
Best of luck against this dreck.
| 10 July 2008, 12:39 pm |
This is really quite amusing. So, if it goes to the wire, it’s basically going to come down to whether or not the BMI can demonstrate that DaveM’s translation of the original was unreasonable and hence malevolent. The background to Hamas etc is surely not directly relevant to the case.
| 10 July 2008, 12:46 pm |
TheIrie: Thanks for the legal advice. My advice to you: Stick to the chalk.
| 10 July 2008, 12:47 pm |
It is directly relevant to two issues:
1. Whether it was reasonable to assume that Mr Sawalha would use a phrase like “Evil Jew”
2. Damages
| 10 July 2008, 12:47 pm |
Count me in as well. I have linked to this piece and asked my readers to help where they can.
| 10 July 2008, 12:50 pm |
I will contribute to any fighting fund, if it is needed.
Mark
| 10 July 2008, 12:52 pm |
Where do I donate too?
| 10 July 2008, 12:52 pm |
Thank you to everybody for the offers of support.
The main support we need at this stage is moral, rather than financial.
If we do have to fight a legal battle over this, no doubt, a fund will be set up.
| 10 July 2008, 12:58 pm |
It is directly relevant to two issues:
1. Whether it was reasonable to assume that Mr Sawalha would use a phrase like “Evil Jew”
- In that case, isn’t your background also relevant, as in, whether it was reasonable to assume you and Dave M would malevolently misrepresent a Muslim organisation. In other words, if you bring up the charter, which the BMI didn’t write, might not the BMI bring up the HP archives. In said archives they will not find explicitly racists statements from you, but they will from you’re commenter’s (ref Morgoth’s recent comments about burying Muslims in pig skins, and so on). If the BMI is guiltly by association with the Hamas charter, are you not similarly associated with both individual comments here, and what one could easily characterise as a broad trend of unchallenged racism in the comments?
2. Damages
I don’t know what this means, can you explain. Or, ami, insult my ignorance if you prefer.
| 10 July 2008, 1:02 pm |
It means that Mr Sawalha, a fugitive Hamas commander, has no reputation to damage.
| 10 July 2008, 1:04 pm |
I’m in.
| 10 July 2008, 1:05 pm |
Ok - but what about my first point.
| 10 July 2008, 1:09 pm |
I allow you to comment here, TheIrie.
That doesn’t mean that I share your tolerance of anti-jewish racism. Nor does it mean that I endorse your soft soaping of racist genocidal terrorist organisations. It just means that I maintain an open blog, where people are entitled to express their views, and others are able to argue against them.
Now, I’m not planning to discuss this with you on this thread, so save it for another day.
| 10 July 2008, 1:12 pm |
(ref Morgoth’s recent comments about burying Muslims in pig skins, and so on)
Burying dead Islamist Terrorists in pigskins is racist?
You don’t know what the fucking word means, TheIrie. You’re also serially dishonest.
I also want to bury dead Christian Fanatics in male semen. And dead Hindu fanatics in cow skin. Is that also racist as well, TheIrie?
| 10 July 2008, 1:13 pm |
I’ll help
| 10 July 2008, 1:15 pm |
Fair enough, but I’m simply suggesting that Mohammed Sawalha’s connection with the Hamas charter, which you make a big deal of, is about as tenuous or untenuous as your association with the general drift of the attitudes on this blog. I can’t see how, if you are not responsible for this, Sawalha is responsible for a 20 year old document.
| 10 July 2008, 1:15 pm |
Me too. The entertainment value of the “zaniness” of this firm of solicitors is priceless. Most amusing is why the Iranian-born solicitor at Messrs. Dean and Dean is “known as Sean.”
| 10 July 2008, 1:17 pm |
Also me.
| 10 July 2008, 1:17 pm |
“I’ll help”
And me.
There was a time when I’d have tried to get a resolution through the Labour Party GC, but sadly, can’t see it happening now.
Still, perhaps others in a less “PC” area could have a go?
| 10 July 2008, 1:18 pm |
Moral support, always. You need any harder currency, let us know.
| 10 July 2008, 1:18 pm |
I will also make a donation for your legal costs.
| 10 July 2008, 1:19 pm |
@TheIrie
Are you going to make a donation?
Or does the aggrievement of a Hamas member (as the result of an accidental mistranslation) trump freedom of speech rights for you?
| 10 July 2008, 1:21 pm |
I’ll help too. Setup a Paypal account, I’ll stuff some cash your way.
Blimey, there are some generous/gullible folk here today. I am sure its tempting for David T to open an account and let the money roll in!
I am glad to see that he’s going to wait and see first.
| 10 July 2008, 1:22 pm |
I’m simply suggesting that Mohammed Sawalha’s connection with the Hamas charter, which you make a big deal of, is about as tenuous or untenuous as your association with the general drift of the attitudes on this blog
Sawalha is a senior activist in Hamas. He is a fundraiser for that organisation.
How does that make his connection to the Hamas charter as ‘tenuous’ as David T’s relation to any old tosser who posts a comment here?
Jesus.
| 10 July 2008, 1:25 pm |
TheIrie
If the BMI is guiltly by association with the Hamas charter, are you not similarly associated with both individual comments here, and what one could easily characterise as a broad trend of unchallenged racism in the comments?
Nice illogical attempt to muddy the water.
Mr Sawalha belongs to a racist organisation whose charter is explicitly and unambiguously racist. He has signed up to those racist beliefs and ambitions. His fellow Hamas and Moslem brotherhood cronies have done the same. They are so odiously repellent that they need to create front organisations to disguise their racist ambitions.
I wasn’t aware that there was any charter for Harry’s Place (at least I don’t remember ever seeing one — maybe I signed it in a dream). David T. simply runs a blog that anyone can read, and almost anyone can post to. How on earth can David T. be accountable for what the occasional idiot might say.
| 10 July 2008, 1:27 pm |
I’m honoured to have any opportunity to give moral, practical and what I can in the way of financial support. Just let us know what we can do that would be helpful. Glad you have Mishcon de Reya on your side. I think their track record on cases like this inspires confidence. Hope you end up taking Mr S for costs. Long live HP!
| 10 July 2008, 1:28 pm |
David, you’re doing something right when you have enemies like Hamas. I almost feel that congratulations are order - if it weren’t for the bother of Britain’s easy to abuse torte system.
And I must say that TheIrie managed to shock me by being much more of a cunt that I thought he was capable of.
| 10 July 2008, 1:29 pm |
“Are you going to make a donation?” - to which side are you referring?
Joke. No I’m not going to make a donation. It is my view that when it became clear that the comment in question certainly did not say what it was reported to have said, regardless of the reasons, David should have changed his post, and particularly his headline “We resent the evil Jew in Britain”, because what ever else you think about this, we know that that is not what was said. David should have changed the post, but I don’t think he needed to apologise, as I’m willing to give him and Dave M the benefit of the doubt that is was an honest mistake. If he had done that this wouldn’t be happening. As this is happening, whatever personal affection I might have for David T (he’s a nice bloke at the end of the day), I can’t support him on this issue. So, I’m impartial.
| 10 July 2008, 1:31 pm |
We do have a mission statement it is:
“Liberty, if it means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear ”
My enemies include the following:
- a fugitive Hamas commander
- a neo-Nazi former Miss Newcastle
- a Milosevic groupie journalist
- the SWP
I’m doing just great.
| 10 July 2008, 1:31 pm |
i thought hamas were democratically elected in a landslide victory
| 10 July 2008, 1:33 pm |
I’ll certainly give you a donation if it becomes necessary.
However, you should have little to worry about. Defamation laws in the UK are a bit complicated, but you did cover yourselves pretty well when you mentioned your source and then explained how your source had then changed the translation and what it had changed it to. Second, if you’re going to stand by the “truth” defence, you’ll win. All you have to do is show any court an official translation of the Hamas Charter (which your opponent subscribes to). As the charter is most definitely anti-semitic and hateful, anyone who supports it is ipse facto the same.
Dean and Dean sound like a bunch of wankers for agreeing to send you such legal threats. They know it will be a waste of time. You could even report them to the Law Society for unprofessional and unethical behaviour.
| 10 July 2008, 1:33 pm |
“we know that that is not what was said”
We know that Al Jazeera changed its report, which I reported. We know no more than that.
| 10 July 2008, 1:34 pm |
“You could even report them to the Law Society for unprofessional and unethical behaviour.”
They already have their problems on that front, apparently.
| 10 July 2008, 1:40 pm |
I read your link and wondered why on earth these so called solicitors should be allowed to waste so much court time with vexatious litigation. So I googled them. Below is the first link I found and of course it turns out that the name Dean & Dean is just a front for a vexatious firm of Moslem lawyers. (I suppose they are licensed to practice in the UK or employ a front man who is).
It has to be asked, do they lead a charmed life because they represent so many wealthy and influential members of the Moslem community?
Mrs Ben
Below is the first link I found:
March 13, 2005
Met faces claim of Muslim racism
Robert Winnett The Times
THE Metropolitan police are being threatened with an £8m legal claim over allegations that they discriminate against the Middle Eastern community in Britain’s richest area.
One of the leading firms of Middle Eastern lawyers in London has filed an official complaint over the lack of police action when crimes are reported by Muslims.
Sir Ian Blair, new head of the Metropolitan police, has agreed to investigate the allegations made primarily against officers in Kensington and Chelsea, west London.
However, the police may still face an embarrassing legal case at a time when they are trying to win over the community whose assistance is critical in the fight against terrorism.
The claim is being prepared by Dean & Dean solicitors, whose clients have included the Saudi royal family, the King of Morocco, David Khalili, the wealthy Iranian art dealer, Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi-born billionaire, and the Hinduja brothers.
Dr Shahrokh Mireskandari of Dean & Dean says that his firm has clients with cases involving attempted murder, assault, domestic violence and fraud where the police reaction has been woefully lacking.
The firm has decided to use the case of a leading Iranian cleric to highlight police inadequacies. The cleric, one of the most senior ayatollahs in Iran, was allegedly kidnapped in Knightsbridge last autumn after agreeing to give evidence in a complicated divorce case. The incident was captured on video and those involved, including a former police officer, are known to the police.
However, Dean & Dean claims that the police refused to collect the necessary witness statements and other evidence and did not conduct a proper investigation.
The solicitors also claim that the treatment of the victim at the scene of the alleged crime by police officers was “indefensible”. The cleric was initially treated as the perpetrator of a crime.
Evidence collected by Dean & Dean has been reviewed by senior barristers who believe that it constitutes a strong well-proven case which should be prosecuted.
Letters sent by the police officers investigating the case say that that they do not have adequate financial resources to investigate all alleged crimes promptly.
Yesterday Mireskandari said: “The victim of this crime is a very senior religious cleric, yet the handling of his case by the police has been woeful. I doubt the police would investigate a serious offence against a top bishop or rabbi in such a slipshod way. We believe this is evidence of racism in the Met.
“The community are outraged at the way they are being treated when reporting serious crimes to the police and the conduct of officers needs to be investigated.”
Other cases which the firm says have not been properly investigated include a Middle Eastern man who has been the victim of bank fraud seven times, a billionaire Kuwaiti who was almost killed by attackers outside his home yet the police have failed to follow up on key leads, and the case of a man who has received death threats.
“The community is trying to do everything it can to assist the police in fighting terrorism, but when they are treated like this on a daily basis many people become disenchanted,” said Mireskandari. “All these cases are just passed from one police department to the next. Nothing happens.”
Last month Dean & Dean formally put the police on notice that it was preparing a claim for damages. The firm is also lining up meetings with local MPs.
The Metropolitan police said they were unable to comment.
| 10 July 2008, 1:41 pm |
David,
Can you refresh our memories as to what the context was anyway, it strikes me that referring to the jewish lobby is different to evil jew, but hardly likely to be used by someone who isn’t an anti-semite. The “Israeli Lobby”, or “Zionist Lobby” would be more normal choice of language for someone being careful to avoid accusations of racism, unless of course Sawalha was referring to the other meaning of lobby - I think if he came to my house Sawalha might rather enjoy our lobby…
| 10 July 2008, 1:42 pm |
Its only moral support your looking for at this stage is it? Thank god for that. Baby needs new shoes etc.
| 10 July 2008, 1:42 pm |
It is my view that when it became clear that the comment in question certainly did not say what it was reported to have said
You really are a dishonest fuckwit. The whole thing was that the comment DID say what it was reported to have said. Then the comment was changed. And HP reported BOTH these occurrances accurately and in a timely fashion.
You know, TheIrie, I get a lot of abuse sometimes on this blog because of my views. That’s fine. I can take that. One of the perils of posting views publically. I give as good as I give back. No one, as far as I’m aware, has ever accused me of dishonesty. They can and do say plenty of other things about me, some of which may be true (*laughs*).
You on the other hand are *actively dishonest*. You’re not interested in debate. You don’t care about facts. You make up quotes by use of selective editing. You quote-mine to such an extent that it would make a whack-job young-earth-creationist proud. You’re a drive-by poster whose modus operandi is exceedingly dishonest and in bad faith. And behind all this is a overarching maleovent hatred of Jews and Westerners that pervades every post of yours. You’re not a secret Salafist are you?
If by some mad occurance, Hamas actually decides to take this further, I really do hope you end up in the witness stand. Because your credibility would be in ruins inside 30 seconds flat.
| 10 July 2008, 1:43 pm |
DavidT
“My enemies include the following:
- a fugitive Hamas commander
- a neo-Nazi former Miss Newcastle
- a Milosevic groupie journalist
- the SWP
I’m doing just great.”
Crikey David, don’t be coy. Which one exactly is TheIrie?
My money is on number 2.
| 10 July 2008, 1:45 pm |
“Fair enough, but I’m simply suggesting that Mohammed Sawalha’s connection with the Hamas charter, which you make a big deal of, is about as tenuous or untenuous as your association with the general drift of the attitudes on this blog. I can’t see how, if you are not responsible for this, Sawalha is responsible for a 20 year old document.”
If I am a supporter or member of the SWP, one would imagine that I support its constitution and ideology. I could not sue for libel if someone called me a Trotskyist. Likewise, a supporter or member of Hamas supports its Covenant, which is anti-Jewish. Therefore, it is not lbellous to call Hamas followers racist. Sawalha is an anti-Jewish racist so long as he associates with the Hamas terrorist organisation and so long as Hamas maintains its Covenant. Of course, one can support the right of Palestinian Arabs to self-determination without being an anti-Jewish racist, but it’s the way in which Sawalha wants to fight for self-determination which is the issue and the organisation he supports is genocidal.
It might be useful to recall a similar dispute that arose when a Liberal Democrat councillor in Chigwell called the BNP Nazis. The BNP complained to the Electoral Commission, which over-ruled its objections on the grounds that it was a legitimate in political debate. I have no problem in calling Sawalha a Nazi for the reasons I have outlined above - he is associated with a violent genocidal anti-Jewish terrorist group.
| 10 July 2008, 1:49 pm |
Perhaps ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ will take up our cause.
| 10 July 2008, 1:53 pm |
| 10 July 2008, 1:55 pm |
That bbc transcipt should’ve been punctuated a bit better.
| 10 July 2008, 1:57 pm |
Technically, the SWPs charter does not mention Trotskyism - the original organisation was Luxemburgist. Theoretically, the entry requirements are so light, that someone could join who doesn’t agree with a good deal of their programme…(even worse, someone could join without *knowing* the SWP are Trotskyists…)
| 10 July 2008, 1:58 pm |
Dan,is there any way for palestinians to fight for self determination
which is deemed acceptable and not anti semitic by the writers at harrys place?
| 10 July 2008, 1:59 pm |
Dean & Dean’s Dr S Mireskandari defended the Hindujas when they sold 20 trucks with military specifications to Sudan for use in “humanitarian missions.” (http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/07/04/0407hindujas.html)
I believe everyone has a right to legal representation, including Hamas supporters and war criminals. But when a law firm’s clients include many people of dubious reputation and when it is constantly being probed for professional misconduct by the Law Society, one has to ask a few questions and probe a little deeper.
| 10 July 2008, 1:59 pm |
Go Dave M!!! Go Dave T!!!!
| 10 July 2008, 2:01 pm |
we will need your help.
And you will indeed have it.