Libel a tort, not a crime

The following article is proof that Griffin is talking through his hat when he claims that the "Truth Booklet", recently posted to "Two year plus" members (viz, those eligible to vote in the British National Party's impending leadership election) of the BNP, constitutes a "criminal libel".

It demonstrates that this former student of law, Griffin, is either ignorant of changes to the law, of which any politician and certainly any political leader worthy of the name, should be aware, or that he is lying, in a desperate attempt to deflect the attention of BNP members from the truly devastating indictment of his leadership the contents of the document constitute.

Did you notice how rattled Griffin looked in his Candidate video?

"Lies, all lies!" shrieks Griffin. But he fails to address a single one of these so-called lies. Come on, Mr Griffin, if the document is full of lies, let's have a detailed rebuttal of them, one after the other.

If they are true, on the other hand, one can well understand your unwillingness to attempt any kind of rebuttal.

Let's cheer the demise of criminal libel

Now we are finally rid of four ancient libel offences, it's time to address the imbalance between free speech and reputation

Jonathan Heawood guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 October 2009 13.30 GMT

For all the flaws in English libel law, we should be grateful for small mercies. At least now we've moved further to ensuring libel is no longer a criminal offence in this country. The House of Lords has voted on a government amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill to repeal the laws of criminal libel, seditious libel and obscene libel. With last year's repeal of blasphemous libel, this completes the removal of the four ancient offences that blighted our record on free speech.

It's true that none of these charges had been used for many years; nonetheless, they sat on the statute books like ugly toads, occasionally uttering a warning croak, echoed by even uglier and rather busier toads around the world. Criminal libel laws still apply in the majority of the world's states to the detriment of free speech and the free flow of information. And let's be clear: these laws are not used to protect anyone's reputation, they are used to silence dissent [Emphasis mine, AE].

The Iranian regime is currently preparing to bring criminal libel charges against the former presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi for raising allegations that his jailed supporters were raped by security forces. A judicial committee has rejected his allegations and recommended that criminal charges be brought against him.

The Uzbek journalist Saidjahon Zaynobiddinov was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for defamation and "anti-government activities", for providing the international media with eyewitness accounts of the Andijan massacre in 2005.

And in Thailand, the MP and businessman Jit Siratranont was recently acquitted of criminal libel 18 months after Tesco Lotus – a subsidiary of Tesco – first took umbrage at his comments that Tesco's expansion in Thailand was "aggressive". After an international campaign, causing Tesco severe embarrassment in the UK, these charges were dropped.

It is one of the ironies of the deregulated global economy that speech is ever more tightly regulated: censorship has truly been globalised. The move by the House of Lords is a step in the right direction. By repealing our own ancient speech crimes, the UK is sending a positive signal to other governments.

Yet some questions remain. Now that libel is a purely civil affair, will the government turn its attention to meaningful reforms in this area, to ensure that the balance between free speech and reputation is more appropriately set [Emphasis mine, AE]? Will the government also review its counter-terrorist legislation to ensure that we are free to express our fundamental (even fundamentalist) beliefs without risking criminal charges? Does the repeal of obscene libel laws mean that we are more or less sexually liberated – given new restrictions on "extreme pornography"? And will the Religious Hatred Act allow us to speak out about religious absurdities without fear of being prosecuted for causing offence?

Even the coroners and justice bill contains a grave new threat to free speech, in the form of restrictions on so-called "criminal memoirs" – in fact any piece of writing, work of art, or interview by a former prisoner that relates in any way, even fictionally, to their crimes. These measures have been condemned by human rights groups and charities working in the field of cultural rehabilitation. Yet the government seems prepared to plough on regardless with costly and confusing restrictions on at least two fundamental rights – to freedom of expression and equal treatment before the law.

However, it's not every day that our speech becomes more free, so let's put the tough questions on hold for 24 hours and applaud this principled move by the government and the House of Lords. The measures on criminal memoirs were due to reach the Lords late on 28 October. Let's see how serious they are then about free speech and natural justice.