Absolutely Libellous. posted by Richard Seymour

The pro-war Left have been all of a flutter lately over the court action being taken by George Galloway against The Times for publishing an obscene series of lies in an article written by Julie Burchill, ye fatuous windbag of yore. She, apparently, made a number of false (and rather ridiculous) claims against Galloway. Since the article was published, it appears to have been removed from The Times website. Crooked Timber and Harry's Place have been pissing themselves over the irony of it because - some other socialists once lost a libel case themselves! Imagine! The hypocrisy of it!

Yes, yes, I know. Lindsey German edits a magazine which once housed an article by Alex Callinicos which contained the inaccurate assertion that Quintin Hoare and Branka Magas were "apologists" for the Tudjman regime. Naturally, Hoare and Magas were outraged. They sent for their lawyers at Carter-Ruck, the notorious libel lawyers who will probably drag me through the courts for having said that. Neither Bookmarks, nor Lindsey German, nor Alex Callinicos ever attempted to defend this article. It was admitted that a serious error had been made. The legal costs of the action mounted (Carter-Ruck are very expensive), and Paul Foot made an appeal to socialists and all in the labour movement to donate to a fund to help cover the costs and rescue Bookmarks from imminent harm. He said, among other things:

"It has been a long tradition in the labour movement that arguments between socialists should be conducted openly and should not, except in extreme circumstances, be tested in the courts by the libel laws.

The reason for this tradition is simple. As soon as lawyers get involved in these arguments, the expense of the action in almost every case far exceeds both any damage done by the libel and anything a socialist publisher or author can possibly afford."

So, you see the irony there. There they are knocking the use of law courts, "except in extreme circumstances", and yet Galloway is busy slapping The Times with law suits! To add to the deliciousness of it, Lindsey German fires off a furious letter to The Times questioning Burchill's account of events at Respect meetings she claims to have attended. Imagine it, she loses a court case over inaccurate claims published in the magazine she edits, and she dares to criticise someone else for making inaccurate claims?

As Chris over at Crooked Timber notes :

"Remember the begging letter from Paul Foot appealing for funds to pay for the legal costs and damages incurred by his Socialist Worker Party chums Alex Callinicos and Lindsey German after they libelled Quintin Hoare and Branka Magas? ... The very same Lindsey German is now threatening legal action on behalf of George Galloway MP."

Okay. If you've got over your outrage, we can proceed. First of all, a little factual knock on the head for Chris Bertram. Lindsey German is not threatening legal action on behalf of Galloway. Galloway is threatening legal action on his own behalf. The fact that German alluded to Galloway’s clearly stated intent in no way makes her responsible for the action. In fact, this information is all available on the source he notes, Harry's Place. If that wasn't enough, it is also available in the links provided by Harry's Place. Second, another factual correction for Marcus, the estimable author of the article at Hatchet's burrow. He says:

"Can this be the same Ms German who lost a libel case last year after falsely claiming two fellow-socialists were supporters of holocaust-reviser Franco Tudjman?"

Lindsey German did not make the claim. True, she did allow the article to go to publication and has consequently accepted her share of responsibility for that. But she herself did not make the claim. Sloppy reporting of the facts is unfortunately characteristic of Harry's Place.

Thirdly, Paul Foot's letter was fairly clear on what it meant. Let's rinse and repeat:

"It has been a long tradition in the labour movement that arguments between socialists should be conducted openly and should not, except in extreme circumstances, be tested in the courts by the libel laws.

The reason for this tradition is simple. As soon as lawyers get involved in these arguments, the expense of the action in almost every case far exceeds both any damage done by the libel and anything a socialist publisher or author can possibly afford."

Notice the caveats? "Arguments between socialists" should not be tested in the courts. Unless Julie Burchill has transmuted herself from being a tiresome, hyperbolic figure of ridicule into a principled militant socialist, then we clearly aren't talking about the same thing. Second, The Times is being sued for this article - not because it made the specific claims, but because it made the editorial decision to allow the article to be published. It is not "a socialist publisher or author" and it can well afford whatever sum a court might award Galloway.

Okay? Need I clarify it any further? Does anyone else have any stupid sniggering comments they want to enter before this issue makes way for some more important stuff?