Johanna Kaschke vs Labour bloggers
You might remember Johanna Kaschke:
Ms Kaschke, as a student and member of the centre-left SPD in her native West Germany in the 1970s, helped to organise a benefit concert for Rote Hilfe, an organisation officially designated ‘left-extremist’ by the state; the gig was designed to raise funds for the legal fees of Baader-Meinhof Gang suspects; that she was herself subsequently arrested on suspicion of terrorism; and that she spent several months on remand, after which she was released and compensated for unfair imprisonment.
It is further uncontested that Ms Kaschke nominated herself as Labour candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow in 2007; that she received just one vote; that shortly thereafter she defected to George Galloway’s Respect party; shortly after that, she joined an as-yet-unspecified Communist Party; and that shortly after that, she became a Conservative.
She was, in other words, a member of four political parties in 12 months.
She also appears in the following “video outlining her thoughts on the New World Order here. ‘Even Jesus is such a personification of naturally occuring solar lifecycles’. ‘All great men in history were involved in Masonic lodges, from Lenin to Clinton’.”:
The new world order
Johanna Kaschke | MySpace Videos
One feels natural sympathy for Ms Kaschke, who in a more enlightened society, would receive extensive support from the medical and social services.
In the United Kingdom, however, she is permitted to parade what others might regard as a severe personality disorder before a variety of High Court Judges and Libel juries. Depressingly, she has managed to drag a series of bloggers along there with her.
Here is Dave Osler on the predicament in which he, and two other bloggers, find themselves:
LONGSTANDING readers may remember that I am facing libel action from Tower Hamlets Tory activist Johanna Kaschke – as featured in the YouTube clip above – following a post about her on this blog in 2007. She is also suing two other Labour Party members, Alex Hilton and John Gray, over related issues.
Alex, of course, is prospective parliamentary candidate for Chelsea & Fulham, surely an easy peasy Labour gain in the current political climate. Bankruptcy, which will result for all three of us if Ms Kaschkde prevails, will disqualify him from becoming an MP.
I spent all day yesterday in the High Court, listening to Alex’s appeal that an application for summary judgement be upheld, and I’m just about to head off for a second helping. His case is being argued on a point of law, rather than the underlying merits of the matter. The ruling will probably come about lunch time.
Meanwhile, I’m on for a four-day jury trial, which will cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds, and is set to commence on November 23. ‘Overtly Tory’ blogger Iain Dale has agreed in principle to appear as an expert witness on my behalf, which should underline that this is more than simply a party political spat.
This is an absolute disgrace.
It is also a pretty depressing indictment of our ridiculous law of Defamation.We are more exposed than most blogs, in that we often write about those on the Islamist and neo Nazi far Right. The activists in both these groupings often express revolting views, support or engage in terrorism, and generally conduct themselves in a manner that invites comment. Because the law of Defamation is stacked in favour of the claimant, merely to report what these people do exposes this blog to the threat of litigation. The neo Nazis, sensibly, do not sue. The Islamists, however, have a pet lawyer, who merrily whacks out letters before action, alleging that his clients – who are variously racists, supporters or members of terrorist groups, or are other forms of extremist – have been defamed by us, merely because we report on their words, deeds, and associations. We’ve not publicised all the letters we’ve received of this sort from this man, but there have been a number.
If Alex Hilton loses, then it would be sensible for English blogs to shut comments. We will be forced seriously to consider doing so. Meanwhile, we offer whatever comradely support we can to Dave Osler, and will be following his travails closely.
There is something seriously wrong with our law of defamation, isn’t there?
Comments
| 12 October 2009, 8:53 am |
Yeah, nothing new or specific to the internet era though… Remember cap’n bob maxwell silencing the print media over his theft of the mirror pension fund despite everyone in the news business knowing what he was upto. Odd that our strange libel laws have never been addressed by governments of either party, could we look forward to a possible new tory government finally dealing with it do you think?
| 12 October 2009, 8:57 am |
Bollocks! Why did that happen? First time I posted I got a server busy message, usually if I try again I either get my mutterings to appear properly (once) or a duplicate post message, which means they posted properly first time an HP’s software was bluffing me.
| 12 October 2009, 9:04 am |
Even Private Eye has backed down from Kaschke.
One problem is that she has forbidden anyone even to quote from her blogs. In a blog entry here she claims that if she loses the case it will mean that men will be able to demand sex from women by threatening to smear them through blogs unless they submit.
| 12 October 2009, 9:15 am |
That should not be a matter of concern for her.
| 12 October 2009, 9:24 am |
This is surreal; from the legal page on her blog:
“No authors of this blog are responsible for the contributions of others”
| 12 October 2009, 9:27 am |
I just tried to access the blog entry mentioned in Bartholomew’s post, to La Kaschke’s own blog, and it wouldn’t let me. Doesn’t she believe in free speech? Free speech surely involves other people hearing or reading what you have to say. Seems pretty rum to me.
| 12 October 2009, 9:28 am |
Sue, the link in B’s comment is incorrect, it points back to HP
| 12 October 2009, 9:31 am |
Where’s she getting the sort of money to launch libel suits from?
| 12 October 2009, 9:32 am |
Where’s she getting the sort of money to launch libel suits from?
Libel suit awards?
| 12 October 2009, 9:36 am |
Sorry, I pasted the link from the wrong tab; should have been this one:
http://johannakaschke.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-have-been-blackmailed.html
| 12 October 2009, 9:45 am |
It’s highly principled of Dave Osler, Alex Hilton and John Gray not to ask for sex, and she does give them their due on that. As she says, this is all because her husband died in 2004, and left her a defenceless woman (I inferred the last bit, she doesn’t actually say that,).
| 12 October 2009, 9:50 am |
Worth pointing out that Jon D is not quite correct; no-one was investigating whether Maxwell had been taking money out of the Mirror Group pension funds because those thefts only came to light after his death. There were plenty of other investigations of dubious financial moves by Maxwell which were stopped by editors fearing his litigiousness.
The overreach of the courts in libel has largely been led by judicial decisions rather than the law. There is a current consultation paper which would slightly lift the threat of defamation actions directed at online publishers over the ‘multiple publication rule’.
| 12 October 2009, 9:58 am |
Persons like this have always existed & in developed societies
would be given appropriate help, or at least be permitted to
ramble on unhindered, if harmless.
If she succeeds, using the UK’s shameful libel laws,
then one ignorant idiot will have stopped serious
political comment on the web.
I am not a believer in an interventionist God.
But right now I’m praying —
| 12 October 2009, 10:07 am |
Another marvellous JK quote:
I like WordPress because I can stop other WordPress users linking to me
| 12 October 2009, 10:35 am |
That’s a bit of a circular argument david cos when he was dead and no longer able to initiate libel suits the papers were very quick to pipe up with whistleblower stories they’d not had the balls to run with previously… That’s the way Ian Hislop tells it anyway. Would the press mislead up into believing the pension fund stories suddenly ‘came to light’ when he died instead of admitting they’d known for months but been too sacred to print them when he was alive?
| 12 October 2009, 10:39 am |
Who is the Judge in Alex’ case?
| 12 October 2009, 10:45 am |
>>One feels natural sympathy for Ms Kaschke, who in a more enlightened society, would receive extensive support from the medical and social services. >>
Hmm, medicalise those with unorthodox views. Didn’t that used to happen in the DDR? The Stasi were social workers (of a sort). Harry’s Place and Socialist Unity are converging!
| 12 October 2009, 10:51 am |
You are of course, completely right. It is outrageous for Dave Osler to have allowed one of his readers to post the observation that this woman is “‘one cherry short of a Schwarzwalderkirschtorte’”
And Jesus is a personification of naturally occuring solar lifecycles.
| 12 October 2009, 11:04 am |
Oh fuck, she lives on my estate and runs the local Neighbourhood Watch.
| 12 October 2009, 12:02 pm |
“Oh fuck, she lives on my estate and runs the local Neighbourhood Watch.”
How very fitting…
| 12 October 2009, 12:11 pm |
Oh fuck, she lives on my estate and runs the local Neighbourhood Watch.
Have you noticed a proliferation of “Icht gehore nicht sur Vorhang-Beobachter gruppe” stickers on your neighbours cars?
(By the way this site is taking hero-worship a bit far I’d say…)
| 12 October 2009, 12:37 pm |
It is a shame that this delightful and delectable woman does not allow people to quote from her blog without succumbing to an attack of litigiousness.
But,one should really savour the irony of her post here:
http://johannakaschke.blogspot.com/2009/03/innocent-until-proven-guilty.html
Where she complains about how UK libel law presumes the guilt of the accused and how unfair it is because the libelled cannot “proof otherwise” [sic].
This religious lady (is that a libellous term?) witters on about God in her tedious blog posts, and mentions Christ in her video above. Perhaps she should act in a more spiritual and Christian manner and not use laws that she herself considers unjust against people she appears to politically disagree with.
It doesn’t seem very Christian at all. Has she perhaps become possessed by an unclean spirit?
I am only asking a question, of course, and would never dare to suggest that this delightful fraulein would allow herself to be penetrated by one of Satan’s minions.
| 12 October 2009, 3:55 pm |
I have not been following this particular case, but English libel laws are long overdue for an overaul – they are far too loaded in favour of plaintiffs with deep pockets. Anyone with enough money can tie up any private investigation into their behaviour with endless write. One thinks of Robert Maxwell and the Saudi prince who suppressed Funding Evil, humiliating our oldest publisher in the process.
| 12 October 2009, 5:14 pm |
Have you noticed a proliferation of “Icht gehore nicht sur Vorhang-Beobachter gruppe” stickers on your neighbours cars?
Ha ha (took me a while but I got there).
Have to say she’s a sight less of an eyeful than the ladies in the movie. Brigitte Mohnhaupt’s actress can research her next role round here any time she likes.
| 12 October 2009, 10:47 pm |
Here in Oz there’s been a it of a change in defam laws and they’re uniform now, which fixes a lot of problems. I do think protecting a reputation is worthwhile and I don’t see suing to do that as an infringement on free speech. Defam law is all about 2 things: the reputation you actually have (and the woman in question, her reputation is that she’s nuts, so calling her a nut won’t injure her) and the form of words and circumstances need not to be malicious. Pretty simple. This blog gets it right. It’s not malicious and it’s going after people, when it does do that, for their actual actions.
I reckon the thing to worry more about in the UK is that silly Human Rights law you’ve gone and signed up to. Mosely anyone? Privacy? Ack.
| 13 October 2009, 4:11 pm |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_bin_Mahfouz#UN_designation
More on the Irishman-of-convenience Khalid bin Mahfouz here and a handy link to the entry about ‘libel tourism’ too
| 13 October 2009, 4:16 pm |
And how a thobe and gutra were decorated with a shamrock:
Yeah, nothing new or specific to the internet era though… Remember cap’n bob maxwell silencing the print media over his theft of the mirror pension fund despite everyone in the news business knowing what he was upto. Odd that our strange libel laws have never been addressed by governments of either party, could we look forward to a possible new tory government finally dealing with it do you think?