A Setback for the Brotherhood in Britain
This is a cross-post from Mutazil of The Spittoon
The struggle against Islamism in this country is a long war, with all that entails. It unfolds in a world of skirmishes, false-starts and minutely shifting power balances.
Every now and then, however, comes a set-piece moment:
“The Trustees of Policy Exchange are delighted to report that Mr Justice Eady yesterday struck out the claim brought against us by the North London Central Mosque.
North London Central Mosque commenced an action against Policy Exchange and Dr Denis MacEoin for libel, following publication of our study “The Hijacking of British Islam” in October 2007.
Six trustees who had advanced the claim on behalf of the North London Central Mosque were ordered to pay Policy Exchange’s costs of defending this action.
The High Court made a further Order that £75,000 of those costs be paid by North London Central Mosque within 28 days.”
Of course, a Hail Mary appeal by the NLCM is not out of the question. Indeed it is likely, given that part of the point of all Islamist legal action is to intimidate and distract regardless of the prospect of success.
But, for now, I look forward to reading the gleeful accounts of this “humiliating climbdown” that will no doubt follow on ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ and its ilk.
****
Harry’s Place adds: we too have been the target of Islamist lawfare, including an attempt to sue us by Mohammed Sawalha, a trustee (pdf) of the North London Central Mosque and a fugitive Hamas commander. This is welcome news.
Comments
| 27 November 2009, 8:01 pm |
Alec:
Even broken digital clocks are correct for a second once every 24 hours.
I must say that given how heavy the onus on the defendants are under British defamation laws, the plaintiffs must have had an extremely weak case.
| 27 November 2009, 8:20 pm |
Are we expected to believe that Mr Justice Eady finally got something right, and it wasn’t at gunpoint?
Perhaps someone should send for an ambulance, he must have had some sort of nasty bang on the head.
| 27 November 2009, 8:28 pm |
Monty
27 November 2009, 8:20 pm
Are we expected to believe that Mr Justice Eady finally got something right, and it wasn’t at gunpoint?
Perhaps someone should send for an ambulance, he must have had some sort of nasty bang on the head.
___________________
It is surprisingly out of character for him.
He got Polanski to sue Vanity Fair in London while the plaintiff stayed in Paris on a video-link. This was done lest Polanski get arrested in Britain and deported to the States to face justice for the paedophilia he confessed to.
Allowing a known fugitive from justice to conduct a libel trial in Britain on a video-link, helping him to avoid his punishment and then giving Polanski the benefit of the case was probably one of the lowest moments in the history of British justice.
| 27 November 2009, 10:23 pm |
Isn’t North London Mosque the ’success story’ that Bob Lambert is always going on about?
You know, the one where the Metropolitan Police helped to defeat Abu Hamza’s jihadism by appointing a Hamas jihadist in his place.
Nice work. Thanks for that.
| 27 November 2009, 10:41 pm |
I doubt it’s more to do with Eady’s kritocratic munificence than the sheer absurdity of the case brought by the NLCM. I still disagree with the potential of libel laws to silence dissent and line the pockets of serial litigants, but the PE did not initiate this… the NLCM did, presumably with the hope of ruining the PE.
I hope they dig deep into their pockets.
Have a look at what a certain someone said:
| 27 November 2009, 10:46 pm |
Oh, oh, I think HP is in trouble: if suspecting the mosque of doing anything “Hail Mary”-like doesn’t lead to another libel suit, I don’t know what would…
| 27 November 2009, 11:08 pm |
For those of you are eagerly awaiting a change of gvt- Dominic Greave in his interview yesterday stated that he was against any amendment of the libel laws to place the onus on the claimant, or to tighten up the jurisdiction rules (so that you should not be able to sue in the UK if as in one case all the parties are Ukrainian, the statement was published in the Ukraine and maybe 3 people in the UK may have read the Ukrainian website.) He was only in favour of one reform, namely to the fee structure and the conditional fee arrangements.
| 27 November 2009, 11:15 pm |
I still disagree with the potential of libel laws to silence dissent and line the pockets of serial litigants, but the PE did not initiate this… the NLCM did, presumably with the hope of ruining the PE.
Not sure I follow the logic, Alec.
Why is it “but”?
Of course NLCM initiated this – and PE are the ones who were supposed to be silenced.
| 27 November 2009, 11:18 pm |
Pre-empting any plaintive cries – such as from Sunny Hundal – about why we can take any delight in financial ruination of the NLCM or trustees.
Eady? Does… not… compute…