What does Defamation Law Cost?

There are few more obvious limitations on free speech than the anachronism that is defamation law. 

Those who have followed the sorry and sad Savile case in the UK can be forgiven for wondering...how did he get away with it for so long, when so many knew?

There are two significant reasons: 

Defamation law and the sickening silence and denial surrounding sexual abuse including inappropriate sexual behaviour. The two combine to create a cone of silence based upon fear.

In some cases the silence and or a reluctance to be more forthright about reporting the truth by those who may have known and wanted to tell was likely due to the threat of ruin by defamation law and the lack of support they knew could be the likely consequence of their coming forward publicly. Social politics comes into play in addition, the consequences are high. The victim's situation and or the truth becomes so much collateral damage.

Who might have dared to accuse Savile of the acts and behaviours now freely reported since his death, particularly in the UK? Information shared that is damaging to a reputation [even though true] is defamation in the UK and Australia. The truth is of little consequence as the systems supporting this law will first make every attempt to pauperise the teller of the truth, as this teller, this whistle blower, becomes the primary target. Once litigation begins there is little choice. Retract, pay damages, and recant stating what was claimed as truth was all a lie, or go through the legal processes. Some may feel they have no choice, others aware they are up against a flawed system cave. Some imagine the courts will reveal the truth and that truth and logic will prevail. The innocence of this assumption of the law is touching, honourably and genuinely felt but entirely and devastatingly wrong. 

What defamation law does best is to protect, ultimately itself, and to operate at great financial and social cost. It costs the whistle blower and it costs the society as the truth becomes so much insignificant dust amongst the damage wrought by "due process".

Who cares for the truth after-all? Not the law, not the legal system, not the players of defamation roulette.

What does manage to happen is that an industry where all or many of the listed players end up taking their cut goes on operating in flawed abandon without checks and balances to limit its misuse.

Litigant

Lawyers

Mediators

Judges

Courts

Litigious malcontents desperate to hide the truth about themselves wield defamation law as a weapon resulting in the silence and compliance of most defendants.

From the perspective of a defendant who can rely upon truth the system is set up so as to extort a retraction in order to escape seemingly inevitable financial disaster. The cost to society is that reputation has become an entity so sacred that it deserves protection over and above all other considerations. This is wrong, this does not demonstrate any rule of law or justice. This is a sick system open to manipulation.

A silent majority of moderates

Freedom II

Irshad Manji's message is honourable and simple, be morally courageous and speak out for the truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM8t89Fa_Xs&feature=related

The issue I have with Irshad's message is it remains entrenched in religious belief and this undermines it. You will hear her say that great religions such as Islam hold undeniably in each their own way a message of love. That in the name of Islam and Muslims this under-pinning message has been distorted by a radicalised extremist and increasingly violent element.  In another video Irshad tells the students that education alone does not prevent extremism, this is an accurate observation as many of the most infamous extremists are highly educated (though claims otherwise they are disenfranchised, poor, ill-educated are more popular or digestible). Neither though is it the case that religion prevents such things, else we may have less incidents of radicalised violent extremists blowing up stuff and other humans in the name of Islam - which is a religion? What can help prevent extremism and the concomitant terrorism becoming more and more associated with Islam? Irshad's message argues questioning is a strength in matters of faith, and that current "moderate Muslims" need to be outspoken and questioning of the extremism they witness emerging from within their religion.

Be honourable, fearlessly outspoken and public in support of human rights and of their communities. Contradict the extremists publicly in support the happiness and health of their muslim communities in whatever land they reside.

The humanist message she strongly and effectively presents though originates from a different perspective and not a religious one, not at least in the modern religion as we know them. Her message and themes are carried to us from ancient Greece through to an 18th Century re-emergence and recognition of a way of thinking that reintroduced reason into cultural, political and social conduct.

She is, due to her faith, perhaps, the glimmer of a transition to a form of enlightenment that Ayaan Hirsi Ali lamented [Infidel] remains the ever limiting curse of Islam. To paraphrase Hirsi Ali (badly probably) and Irshad if I understand the point she is attempting to make, we have a "political Islam" lacking the maturing and socialising influence of an enlightenment.

What is Putin to do with a problem like Pussy Riot?

"…the insult and humiliation of the Christian faith and inciting religious hatred." 


Yekaterina Samutsevich, Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova the 3 female members of Pussy Riot were each sentence to 2 years in a penal colony for "the insult and humiliation of the Christian faith and inciting religious hatred".


The sentencing Judge, Syrova, in her comments additionally criticised the defendants for being feminists, though noting "belonging to feminism in the Russian Federation is not a legal violation or crime." Well that's lucky but...The point being publicly made is they are in addition to their sentence to be admonished by the Laws and The State for holding feminist convictions. Syrova included in this admonishment (rather than sentence) that the women were not quite the full quid presumably because of their atheism, feminism and choice to protest. The prosecution had expert opinion prove the women had psychological disorders how else could they could have performed such an atrocious act (presumably?).


What they've really be gaoled for in truth is sedition, but throw in to perhaps gain public acceptance is the heinous crime of defaming religion and inciting hate.
 It is interesting that mockery or criticism of religion can be considered to defame and an incitement to hate. The Russian Orthodox Church has come out in addition prior to the sentencing to openly accuse any church critics of "militant atheism". To critique or simply mock the church is militant and illegal. To jump about in colourful balaclava's beseeching the Virgin Mary to get rid of Putin for Russia's sake is not ostentatious and lurid socio-political protest it is militant and illegal - seditious. It is healthy for both a country and its people to take a challenging hit in the moral and ethical guts - obviously for Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church it is a step too far. 


Which religion is it okay to criticise for being backward and oppressive?

An Australian women's magazine The New Idea has the answer, it is conservative Quakerism an alternate form of Christianity.

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/new-idea/video/watch/30126358/

I have with joking cheekiness, on occasion, referred to the New Idea as No Idea but I can't argue with the inherent logic of their current Ad campaign - see the video link above. Though it has flaws, I'm relatively impressed. The campaign is I believe intentionally plugging into real issues for women held back and suppressed by their religion and communities, but are treading very carefully in doing so by using a pragmatic point of reference.

The ad depicts a conservative and backward Christian community where normal human behaviours and needs are suppressed and actively oppressed particularly for women. Quaker communities can be illogical, counter intuitive even antithetical to normal human behaviour and backward thinking...regressive by obsessively enforcing a rejection of modern society and a cloistering of the community on all levels from education to dress. 

This is oppressive practice, is what the ad points out. Why is this oppressive? 

Because the demands of the religion and community set people up to fail or be miserable in complying with an impossible creed or irrational moral code. Add to this oppression of normal human interactions a forced or reinforced disconnection from other societies, ways of thinking, invention and experience. If stasis and subjugation of a people is the aim then this is a successful model.

That briefly addressed, most readers may agree with or find only mild issue with the points above for this assessment of Quaker communities is generally an accepted one. 

What I'd ask the reader to further and more importantly consider is would the magazine or any individual get away with it - criticising the religion/communtiy this way - if in place of this Quaker example they instead depicted a similarly conservative Islamic community in this same light?

The Quaker maid's bonnets and cumbersome dresses would be replaced by the veil or the hajib or even dare we say the niqab and burqa, removed to set the body, hair, face and eyes free. New ideas might come in place of the lapsing of these restrictions place on the individual by the religion/community.

Unfortunately the reality is if Islam were used as the example the answer is they would not get away with it.

For if they did use Islam to depict the conservative and backward community enlivened by the opening up of awareness of self and others, one or all of the following charges would be drawn to ensure the Ad would already have been pulled. 

a) The ad is racist towards Muslims.

b) The ad depicts Islamic women as sluts and western whores.

c) The ad is blasphemous towards Islam.

d) a-c as all offences apply.

Good on New Idea for having a go. Soft target though it was, in reality they had little choice if they wanted to make a point at all.

A measure of evil

afghan-woman-executed-for-adultery

All Religions are Cults

Recent criticism that Scientology is more cult than religion have resurfaced due to the split between the golden boy of Scientology, Tom Cruise, and his wife Katy Holmes.

I refer to Scientology as a religion as it conforms with my source definition and understanding of a religion:

religion |riˈlijən|

nounbelief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: • details of belief as taught or discussed: • a particular system of faith and worship: 

• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: 

The definition references origins of the word which cite meanings of "obligation" "bond" "reverence" and in addition from the Latin "religare" to bind.

Mac OS X Dictionary widget*

An Australian TV program today presented a segment asking "is Scientology an evil cult?" (channel 7 morning show). It was segueing from the "TomKat" split to questions of the religion. The "evil cult" question and any answers proffered (I didn't hang around watching to find out what the invited guests thought or discussed) though are pretty irrelevant. Why pick on Scientology at all for critical examination when other religions expect equal forms of irrational devotion. And, what measures are critics using to warrant asking is Scientology an "evil cult"?

The popular myth that Scientology's beliefs and behaviours are "evil" and "cult" like, as apposed to conventional religion/s, perpetuates because it relies upon fear and ignorance (easy to exploit). Those asking these questions miss the biggest implication of all by what they ask which is of course the corollary question that are all religions cult like and dangerous (evil is valid, in its true meaning, but as most imbue this word with mystical religious overtone, which I do not intend, I'll stick with dangerous). Inspirational places of worship be they churches, halls of assembly, mosques, synagogues, etc., are religions' theatres for reinforcing their particular/peculiar form of ignorance. Faith, hope, salvation, specialness, company, community, meaning of existence, understanding, support, love, acceptance, material value, are all exploited by religions as we all desire a balance or wealth of such things, because it is human to do so.  

Without going into a full blown argument which requires a degree in comparative religion lets look at some simple facts and compare in order to contrast Scientology against three of the major acceptable religions of our day.

Scientologists believe humans are vessels for a spiritual thinking-life force from the universe, an alien soul in fact (which suffered horribly in the past and need help and authoritative nurturing to safely remember this). That the human form in any time frame could be one of hundreds or thousands of  physical containers of this alien life-force, but the humans are of course unaware of their alien soul and that they the Thetan containers have a significant role and purpose. The aim is to reveal this (at a price) and gain awareness of the past lives already lived by this immortal(?) "spirit/thetan". As you do learn and become aware, you move up in the order as well. There are a set of rules and lessons to be learnt which allows the faithful (who can pay) to rise. The order or levels determine the awareness of the human/Thetan of his/her divinity (perhaps not the best word but it would seem the spirit of the aim). There is a code of conduct concerning ethical behaviour and that the highest of ethical levels to attain is that of the preservation of the Scientology way and any elements of secrecy which outsiders and/or lesser equipped followers must not know for their own protection. The information could kill you without the appropriate preparations. Scientology on the face of it proffers similar end game consequences for doing good or bad works. It recommends being ethical and moral in your life. It has a prophet and various seers to interpret the messages of the prophet and his interconnection with the universal spirit/controller. It appears to be no less or more sincere, no less or more outlandish in its claims than other religions. Scientology is very secretive (protective of its truths) and publishes very little outside of the fold, my sources are included below and I have to defer to them. 

South Park, Alien souls being frozen for transport, still from "What Scientologist actually believe", clip - link below

Christians believe humanity and everything else was created by God in 7 days. That we are all born with "original sin" (Adam and Eve's unseemly expulsion from the heavenly Eden) which by virtue of being baptised protects us from an instant pathway to Hell upon our sudden infant death should that occur.

How The Devil creates Passive Homosexuals and Whores

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3453.htm

London-Based Shiite Cleric Yasser Al-Habib: IS, anti-Sunni but pretty much anti-humanity too.

Let's see, in a nutshell: 

Passive Homosexuality is a "well known" anal disease (lots of Sunni Caliphs past and present have it) acquired at birth because the Devil inserts his index finger into the anus of the newborn boy. Similarly newborn girls who have their vagina penetrated, the Devil again, become whores. Al-Habib saves that great bit for last.

The disease is only cured (I think he means satiated) by semen (well of course).

The semen though creates a  "worm" and it needs more semen and the "worm" in turn causes the passive homosexual excitement about the thought of more penetration which he additively seeks as he requires it in order to "calm down".

Something like that... (sigh!)

London-Based Shiite Cleric Yasser Al-Habib in Anti-Sunni Rhetoric: The Caliph Omar Had an Anal Disease that Made Him addicted to Homosexuality

Fadak TV (U.K.) - May 24, 2012 - 5:22

First seen by leeanneart on http://www.jihadwatch.org

28th Oct 2012 - Post Script: Looks like the original clip of Cleric Al-Habib is now taken down.

No Arab Spring for the women of Egypt

Egyptian women protesters under the escort of male family and friends were mobbed and sexually assaulted for daring to attend a protest let alone one protesting their country's endemic public sexual harassment and assault of women.

mob attacks women in egypt anti-sexual assault rally

This is religiously motivated retribution. Retribution upon women who dare to publicly question Islam's teachings. Teachings which require women maintain public invisibility; obey and observe any requirements imposed by their male relatives or betters who according to Islam are their superiors; be content with a life of domestic servility and pro-creation; maintaining complete silence if not obliviousness in matters of public, political and societal interest.

There is no real "Arab Spring" nor any "Arab Awakening"and especially not one advancing women's rights in that region. Not at least whilst Islam gains momentum (The Muslim Brotherhood) in the wake of any resulting power vacuum.

These unchecked and worsening public assaults on women are a gross human rights abuse committed by male followers of Islam. Arguably this is a religion that would have all women content to submit to a life of ignorance, servility and obviously in Egypt at least willing to live in psychological terror awaiting the next random abusive act by any male they encounter.

"Enlightened"males attempting protective escort of the protesting women highlight the issue. It is necessary and in accordance with Islam anyway that women go out in public under the escort of a male relative only. Even if the male is the woman's male child. She should not be in public alone and uncovered or unescorted. The absurd defence of these strict characteristics of the religion as being merely an expression of benign religious observance is at best ignorance at worst deliberate obfuscation of the facts. This is an imposed limitation on the movement and involvement of women in the society and public life of their community and country. This in itself without the addition of threat of sexual abuse is in fact a human rights abuse.

Women escorted or not in Egypt risk their personal dignity by simply going into the street. Who knows what happens in private. Public sexual abuse is what they were protesting about and in protesting they had these claims confirmed in the most sickening and cowardly manner via a mob attack.

Islam through the Koran's teaching, from grand Imam to Mosque, normalises and contextualises female sexual assault in the conduct of daily life and it informs its female followers of their place and behaviour in the face of it.

Australians, the State Knows Best

Art with a message the State disagrees with had better watch out in Australia. Censorship by the government is the way the State puts limits on certain thoughts being expressed publicly and with which the State disagrees or perhaps it considers may cause public unrest? north-korean-artists-banned-from-australia  These North Korean artists were commissioned by the Queensland Art Gallery to supply works for exhibiting but they were not allowed entry to Australia to explain their works. This might upset the thoughts of a free thinking secular democratic Australian public, so they were denied visas. The Australian public is here being told that in certain matters they must not be permitted to think for themselves and they must be protected from the expressions, words, ideas, thoughts of others. 

Is the Government overstepping its role? I am concerned it may not matter to Australians as much as it should. Whatever the message art, literature, speech may deliver, the silencing of it by-way of laws designed to limit free expression is much worse.