Galloway wins!

by Daniel on December 2, 2004

Gosh, my pet issues are piling up today! George Galloway won his libel case against the Telegraph.

The week before last I suggested that “Galloway wins, but wins small as he is in large part the author of his own misfortune by cuddling up to Saddam so much.” Well, he won, but he didn’t win small – £150k is a lot of money given that UK libel awards are de facto capped at £200K these days. Basically, I suggested at the time that “much will depend on the judge’s interpretation of a Telegraph editorial at the time which contained the phrase ‘there is a word for taking money from a foreign power … treason'” and it did. The judge decided that the Telegraph had crossed the line between neutral reporting of (after all, pretty damning) facts, and putting the boot into Galloway. This more or less amounted to malice, and the word “qualified” in “qualified privilege” is there to indicate that you can’t use this defence to make statements motivated by malice.

If the Telegraph had won this case, we would have the public interest defence for newspapers established, and the British press would have been that much freer from our ludicrous libel laws. So it’s a bit of a bummer all round.

Galloway’s name is not cleared by this (nor could it be; the truth of the allegations was not an issue in the trial because of the Telegraph’s use of the privilege defence). There are still big questions outstanding over the funding of Galloway’s charities, which are being investigated by Parliament. The really irritating thing here is that the Telegraph threw away a potentially very strong story simply because they could not resist the temptation to throw a load of nasty abuse at a prominent lefty and anti-war figure. This is a lesson which I hope that the pro-war side will pick up (and one I’ve commented on in the past ; it’s simply not on to claim that people who disagreed with you about the specific rush to war in March 2003, did so because they were supporters of Saddam Hussein. That’s not an honest way to carry on the debate, it’s unpleasant and it is, apparently, in the strictest sense, malicious.

{ 46 comments }

1

rob 12.03.04 at 12:27 am

I think it’s worth noting the key point seems to have been that Galloway wasn’t given the opportunity to respond:

“He did not therefore have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published”

and:

“Again, he did not have a proper opportunity to respond in advance to allegations of such gravity.”

2

P O'Neill 12.03.04 at 12:55 am

There’s still the issue of costs, which could swamp the damages e.g. if the judge makes Galloway bear even a relatively small percentage of them.

3

John Quiggin 12.03.04 at 1:02 am

I’m disappointed we never got to truth. As I’ve said on a couple of occasions, I always found the supposed provenance of the Telegraph’s documents totally unbelievable.

A British journalist turns up as an Iraqi government building is being looted, trashed, burned etc and out of the thousands of documents floating about in the rubble happens on the one that implicates one of his newspaper’s favorite targets. How likely is that?

4

Mark 12.03.04 at 3:16 am

“[I]t’s simply not on to claim that people who disagreed with you about the specific rush to war in March 2003, did so because they were supporters of Saddam Hussein.”

And yet, to oppose the removal of Saddam was to endorse the same situation for innocent Iraqis as that advocated by Saddam’s fascist supporters. Thus, it is true that opponents of the war supporterd Saddam’s continued rule, regardless of their psychological motivations or attitudes.

5

Randy Paul 12.03.04 at 4:15 am

Read this comment on Galloway by Glenn Reynolds and you’ll see why he puts the ass in bombastic.

This post on Tapped speaks volumes about the quality of Reynolds erudition on the subject.

6

Randy Paul 12.03.04 at 4:24 am

And yet, to oppose the removal of Saddam was to endorse the same situation for innocent Iraqis as that advocated by Saddam’s fascist supporters.

No, reasonable people can disagree on methods and motivations for ending Saddam’s rule. It is intellectually lazy to border on a smear to claim that “it is true that opponents of the war supporterd Saddam’s continued rule.”

We heard precious little about Saddam’s human rights record prior to the start of war as causus belli (probably with good reason – not to mention Wolfowitz’s Vanity Fair interview.

7

Randy Paul 12.03.04 at 4:29 am

I might add that some of those same opponents of the war also opposed the Reagan and Bush I support of Saddam, which, had it not been given both Gulf Wars may have been avoided, not to mention thousands of deaths in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

8

Mark 12.03.04 at 5:17 am

Randy,

The human rights argument was made before the war by war supporters, including President Bush and members of the Administration. It is pointless now to attempt to suggest that this argument wasn’t made, or that it wasn’t made enough.

“[R]easonable people can disagree on methods and motivations for ending Saddam’s rule.”

Perhaps, but this doesn’t defeat the claim that if you opposed the war you agitated for the same set of affairs as that of Saddam’s fascist supporters. Nor does it address the obvious retort that opponents of the war had no reasonable alternative on offer to remove a genocidal dictator and ameliorate the conditions for the majority of ordinary Iraqis. Calling the claim “a smear”, with the implication that you have been unfairly accused, won’t help you either.

9

junius ponds 12.03.04 at 5:42 am

Mark, it’s blindingly obvious that more Iraqis have died due to the poorly planned war and occupation than would have been killed by Saddam or the sanctions regime over the months it would have taken to at least state the case for intervention and attempt to assemble a real coalition. There was a liberal case for international intervention; I and others made it. Had Bush & co. acted in good faith only to be rebuffed by “Old Europe” anyway, I would be far more sympathetic to the case for unilateral war.

10

Walt Pohl 12.03.04 at 5:58 am

Mark, it’s clear that you are eager both for the death of American soldiers on foreign soil, and to see Iraq embroiled in a civil war. I know you won’t be happy until a lot more Americans and Iraqis are dead, but don’t take it out on us.

11

Frank 12.03.04 at 6:26 am

Um, I thought this was the comments section for the Galloway libel trial.

12

bad Jim 12.03.04 at 8:41 am

Galloway has his own say in a piece in The Guardian:

When the 17th-century republican Algernon Sidney spoke on Tower Hill before his beheading on false charges almost exactly 321 years ago, he observed that “the whole matter is reduced to the papers said to have been found in my closet by the King’s officers”.

13

John Quiggin 12.03.04 at 9:21 am

“Galloway’s name is not cleared by this (nor could it be; the truth of the allegations was not an issue in the trial because of the Telegraph’s use of the privilege defence). ”

I don’t think this is right. If I understand the law (which I may not) it would have been sufficient for the Telegraph to establish the truthfulness of their claimed provenance, that is, the story about the journalist finding the document in an Iraqi government office. On this story, the possibility that the Iraqi government was lying seems sufficiently remote that it could be discounted.

As I say, it seems more likely either that the Tele forged the document or that the journalist was lying about provenance and actually got the document from a paid source, who might either have found it or forged it.

It seems to me that Galloway’s name has been cleared in the sense that the Telegraph has implicitly conceded that it had no reasonable basis for this particular allegation.

14

Alison 12.03.04 at 9:28 am

John Q said

I always found the supposed provenance of the Telegraph’s documents totally unbelievable

That is the key issue, and that is why it is right that Galloway ‘won’. It is irrelevant whether he is a scumbag.

Pick any nasty person you want – pick any allegation, no matter how justified – newspapers can’t just invent evidence, and get away with it on the basis that he had it coming.

What incenses me is that their story is so ridiculous that it insults my intelligence. I know that’s just vanity but it makes me glad to see the Telegraph punished.

15

dsquared 12.03.04 at 9:30 am

I see what you mean. My personal opinion is that the documents accurately record the fact that Iraqi oil-for-food money was paid to a businessman (can’t remember the name but it’s in the documentation) who represented himself as being Galloway’s agent. I’m even prepared to believe that some of this money actually did find its way into funds controlled by Galloway via the Mariam appeal. I’ve never liked or trusted Galloway as a man, and there are real issues to be raised about the funding of his charities and their apparent commingling with his personal finances.

But some of the specific claims which it was found that the Telegraph was making rather than reporting (specifically, that Galloway was receiving and dealing in barrels of oil) never had the ring of truth, and it isn’t on to libel someone no matter how much you don’t like them.

It’s rather like the BBC’s Gilligan story; it was a good story, not without basis and the UK public did deserve to hear it, whether or not its central claims could be made to stand up in a court of law. I honestly believe that the court would have ruled this way if the DT had just managed to keep a lid on the insults.

16

dsquared 12.03.04 at 9:39 am

why oh why oh why do I allow commenters to bait me into reading Glenn Reynolds’ opinions on the UK? They’re always dreadful. “Truth is not a defence in UK libel cases, if I recall correctly”, for God’s sake.

17

Matthew2 12.03.04 at 10:26 am

Like John Quiggin said, we mustn’t forget the context: it was a very heated moment at the heart of what Norm calls the “first war”. Debate was virulent, and that paper magically turning up was a tremendous propaganda victory, at a moment where Blair’s grip on public opinion was very very tenuous because the second resolution failed (anyone remember that?).

18

rob 12.03.04 at 10:40 am

I’m confused: both the Guardian’s and the Scotsman’s report seemed to be saying that Galloway won because the Torygraph didn’t give him the opportunity to respond to the claims it made, particularly the insulting ones. What John Quiggin seems to be suggesting is that the judgement shows the allegations were false, but I’m not sure how that can be if what the Guardian and Scotsman said about the decision of the case is right. That said, I know nothing about British libel law, so perhaps I need some kind of crash course in it. Also, I note the BBC seems not to be reporting this at all, which I think is interesting, given the flak they took (completely unjustifiably) over their coverage of the war and the political decisions running up to it.

19

Michael 12.03.04 at 10:56 am

Also, I note the BBC seems not to be reporting this at all, which I think is interesting, given the flak they took (completely unjustifiably) over their coverage of the war and the political decisions running up to it.

That’s not true at all – it was the BBC website that first alerted me to the news of the libel victory. True, it’s no longer on the front page, but the story’s almost 24 hours old and nothing significant has happened since, so that’s no surprise.

I didn’t watch any BBC news programmes yesterday, but the presence of a video attachment to the online story suggests that they ran it too.

20

Michael 12.03.04 at 11:00 am

There’s still the issue of costs, which could swamp the damages e.g. if the judge makes Galloway bear even a relatively small percentage of them.

According to today’s Independent, the judge made the Telegraph bear all the costs – estimated at £1.2m.

He also denied the paper leave to appeal, but it’s planning to approach the Court of Appeal directly, claiming the damages were excessive.

21

rob 12.03.04 at 12:11 pm

OK, sorry, I didn’t realise they ran it yesterday and Galloway is on the Front page of their British politics thing now, so, I suppose, vague conspiracy theory disproven.

22

Rich 12.03.04 at 12:16 pm

“I’m confused: both the Guardian’s and the Scotsman’s report seemed to be saying that Galloway won because the Torygraph didn’t give him the opportunity to respond to the claims it made, particularly the insulting ones. What John Quiggin seems to be suggesting is that the judgement shows the allegations were false, but I’m not sure how that can be if what the Guardian and Scotsman said about the decision of the case is right.”

There’s a defence in British law that allows the publishing of unverified accusations (which later turn out to be untrue), provided they’re “in the public interest”. What – in my opinion at least – undermined this for this case was the gloating the Telegraph indulged in. See Daniel’s previous posts for more info about the defence.

23

Mark 12.03.04 at 12:30 pm

“[I]t’s blindingly obvious that more Iraqis have died due to the poorly planned war and occupation than would have been killed by Saddam or the sanctions regime over the months it would have taken to at least state the case for intervention and attempt to assemble a real coalition.”

I’m not sure what you think this gets you, but if it’s as obvious as you say, you should have no problem proving it. I look forward to your argument.

24

rob 12.03.04 at 1:06 pm

Mark,

if you’re going to start trolling all over this thread, at least bother to read the careful and reasonably polite deconstructions of your argument in the thread on Norm Geras’s four wars argument. Please.

25

dave heasman 12.03.04 at 1:20 pm

I’m rather surprised, given that Galloway has said that he staked everything he has on the case, that he didn’t join Conrad Black to the libel in the same way as Michael Foot joined Murdoch all those years ago.
Accusing an elected MP of treason is quite a thing; I understand it’s a serious offence that sometimes gets people sent to prison, so for an editorial to do it without the express approval of the proprietor seems unlikely.

26

dave heasman 12.03.04 at 1:23 pm

I’m rather surprised, given that Galloway has said that he staked everything he has on the case, that he didn’t join Conrad Black to the libel in the same way as Michael Foot joined Murdoch all those years ago.
Accusing an elected MP of treason is quite a thing; I understand it’s a serious offence that sometimes gets people sent to prison, so for an editorial to do it without the express approval of the proprietor seems unlikely.

27

reuben 12.03.04 at 1:49 pm

The big nightmare from Galloway’s victory (which I think was deserved) is that it gives impetus to his campaign as a Respect (basically, the anti-war party) candidate in my beloved Tower Hamlets, London in the next election.

Oona King, the current MP for Tower Hamlets, is Labour, and has done a fine job of helping the borough, which has always been one of the UK’s poorest, to improve. Tower Hamlets has a very large Muslim population, though, and Galloway could draw enough of the vote to affect the ultimate result. He won’t win himself, I think – Respect is fringe party – but it’s possible that he could split the Labour vote, giving the win to (gasp!) the Tories, who, as far as I know, have never held Tower Hamlets.

This would be a true blow for the borough – you’d have a predominantly anti-immigration party running one of the most immigrant-rich boroughs in the UK. (It may well be the most immigrant-rich; don’t have stats to hand.)

Last election’s results were (from memory):
Labour 50%
Conservative 25%
Lib Dems 15%

28

dsquared 12.03.04 at 1:59 pm

Tower Hamlets isn’t a constituency; it’s a local authority. The main part of the Muslim community with Tower Hamlets is in Poplar and Canning Town, not Bethnal Green and Bow, which is Oona King’s constituency.

Also, she wouldn’t be that much of a loss; I dispute that she’s done all that much toward “helping the borough to improve”. Tower Hamlets BC has helped itself, and has benefited from the fact that its business rate tax base includes Canary Wharf, which is why it does so much better than nearby boroughs like Lambeth or Hackney. Oona King was never a member of the council; she was parachuted in as one of “Blair’s Babes” in 1997. Since then, she’s been a reasonable constituency MP, but hasn’t really done all that much.

29

Michael 12.03.04 at 2:55 pm

Accusing an elected MP of treason is quite a thing; I understand it’s a serious offence that sometimes gets people sent to prison, so for an editorial to do it without the express approval of the proprietor seems unlikely.

Until very recently (1997?), treason was one of the few capital offences left on the statute books – so you’re right, it’s about as serious as allegations get.

30

reuben 12.03.04 at 3:13 pm

Tower Hamlets isn’t a constituency; it’s a local authority.

Mixed my words there; sometimes we foreigners aren’t so quick on the uptake.

I wouldn’t dispute that Poplar and Canning Town are heavily Muslim, perhaps even moreso than Bow and Bethnal Green, but the latter two do have large Muslim populations, lest my eyes deceive me.

I know there’s a lot of resentment towards King for being a Blair babe and for not being anti-war, but should she lose, the likely Tory alternative would surely not be to the benefit of the constituency. Galloway has enabled a result like this already; I’d prefer not to see it happen again.

31

reuben 12.03.04 at 3:20 pm

Tower Hamlets isn’t a constituency; it’s a local authority.

Verbal slip-up; we foreigners are easily confused.

Perhaps the main part of the Muslim community is in Poplar and Canning Town, but Bow and Bethnal Green are both heavily Muslim. Or do my eyes deceive me?

I know there’s a lot of resentment aimed at King for being a Blair babe and for not coming out against the war, but I’d say she’s a damn sight better an option than the Tory candidate, whoever that may be. Galloway has already contributed to one Tory victory in Tower Hamlets; I’d hate for him to contribute to another. Though hopefully that earlier loss will galvanise the Labour party in Tower Hamlets.

32

reuben 12.03.04 at 3:23 pm

Crikey those 501 errors are confusing!

33

nick 12.03.04 at 3:56 pm

“Truth is not a defence in UK libel cases, if I recall correctly”, for God’s sake.

Quite. “No, Glenn, you don’t. Now shut the fuck up.” He’s the mirror-image of Galloway, in many respects.

Incidentally, I believe the Telegraph’s David Blair was a contemporary of yours, dsquared.

34

Randy Paul 12.03.04 at 5:51 pm

Perhaps, but this doesn’t defeat the claim that if you opposed the war you agitated for the same set of affairs as that of Saddam’s fascist supporters.

The problem with that statement is that it ignores motivation. There are plenty of people who found Saddam’s rule repellent, but who opposed the war. What you are implying is that these same people found common cause with Saddam and that is a smear.

You also didn’t comment on Wolfowitz’s statements which play down Saddam’s human rights record as well the behavior of our government in the 1980’s which facilitated Saddam’s brutality. Accordingly, Donald Rumsfeld in his role as envoy to Saddam “agitated for the same set of affairs as that of Saddam’s fascist supporters,” especially when one considers the fact that the worst of Saddam’s brutality occurred between Rumsfeld’s visit and Gulf War I.

That’s not a smear, by the way; that’s the truth.

35

junius ponds 12.03.04 at 6:31 pm

>I’m not sure what you think this gets you, but if it’s as obvious as you say, you should have no problem proving it. I look forward to your argument.< Um, why don't you check the next blog post? It's about the _Lancet_ study; I don't think sanctions and Saddam would have killed at a rate of 100,000 people/21 months. Genocidal, you say? He had shown he was capable of mass murder, but was he gassing Kurds in March 2003? Let me put it this way: If Bush hadn't made a total hash of the occupation, Iraqi casualties would be a fraction of 100,000 -- say, p*(1E5). Even if Bush had waited x months while Saddam and sanctions killed at a rate of S per month, S*x + p*(1E5) < 1E5.

36

Mark 12.03.04 at 6:40 pm

Randy,

“What you are implying is that these same people found common cause with Saddam and that is a smear.”

You are wrongly inferring this. My comment is about the practical consequences to innocent iraqis under both war opposition and Saddamist supporters; continued fascist dictatorship. That both camps agitated for the same result (although, presumably, for different psychological reasons), is something anti-war leftists are loathe to address. So I don’t blame you for ignoring it.

If the US supported Saddam in the past, this only shows inconsistency; it doesn’t go toward defeating my previous contention.

Rob,

I’ve always tried to post in a civil and polite manner. I’d ask that you do the same.

37

Randy Paul 12.03.04 at 6:59 pm

Mark,

I wouldn’t infer it if you weren’t busy implying it. I’m correctly inferring it, by the way, even if you feel I’m incorrect to do so.

As for ignoring things, you still haven’t addressed the causus belli as brought out by Wolfowitz, nor have you addressed the piss-poor security situation in Iraq, which is probably impacting many more Iraqis on a daily basis than were being impacted before the war.

38

Walt Pohl 12.03.04 at 7:09 pm

I notice Mark remains comfortable with the practical consequences of dead American soldiers and the reduction of a foreign country to chaos. At least he’s honest enough not to deny it.

39

Doctor Slack 12.03.04 at 7:45 pm

“My comment is about the practical consequences to innocent iraqis under both war opposition and Saddamist supporters; continued fascist dictatorship.”

No, it wasn’t. Your comment was that “if you opposed the war you agitated for the same set of affairs as that of Saddam’s fascist supporters.”

Now, it’s reasonable to assume that “Saddam’s fascist supporters” would have wanted a “set of affairs” based on perpetual Saddamist rule well into the future. Since you’re not, to put it mildly, in a position to assume that opposing the war was equivalent to that position, your original statement is nonsense — in exactly the same way as it would have been nonsense to argue that the US during the Cold War was “objectively pro-Soviet” for failing to invade and depose the Politburo.

So, yeah. The reason the “anti-war left” tended to laugh at the “objectively pro-Saddam” yammering that preceded the war is that it was silly then, and it’s silly now, heady though I’m sure it is to throw around accusations with the word “fascist” attached to them. If you insist on engaging in that kind of juvenile flamebaiting, though, kindly don’t try to dignify it with words like “civil” and “polite.” It’s neither.

Now, if you want to contend that the consequences of opposing the war were continued dictatorship in the immediate term, that’s obviously true. But supporting the war has effectively meant supporting the dismemberment of Iraq by dozens of small fascisms instead of its oppression by a single large Baathist system, so you really don’t get to pretend you’re on the moral high ground.

40

Morat 12.03.04 at 9:41 pm

So Mark prefers dead Iraqs (killed by both Americans and other Iraqis) AND dead Americans to simply dead Iraqis?

Personally, I’d have gone for the choice that minimized the number of dead. Mark seems to want to wallow in corpses.

41

Uncle Kvetch 12.03.04 at 10:08 pm

Mark seems to want to wallow in corpses.

From a safe distance, needless to say.

42

Uncle Kvetch 12.03.04 at 10:27 pm

Mark seems to want to wallow in corpses.

From a safe distance, needless to say.

43

rob 12.04.04 at 1:05 am

Mark,

I think it is reasonably civil and polite to point out that you had no adequate answer to the points which were raised in opposition to you on the Norm Geras thread, and that if you want to make exactly the same points that you made there, you really ought to have an answer to them. Specifically, by your standard of evidence, no-one can say anything about causalties in Iraq, including you, and you continue to make the frankly obviously slanderous remark that the left agitated for the continuation of Saddam’s regime. When you have addressed the replies made to these earlier posts, then you should post, before then, just piss off.

44

rob 12.04.04 at 1:16 am

Mark,

also, I don’t see how pointing out that the bad points you made here had been made elsewhere and shown to be bad is either uncivil or rude. Repeatedly posting points which have been shown to be wrong, however, might be construed as being rude, as violating a general rule of discourse that you take your opponents objections seriously.

45

John 12.05.04 at 8:49 pm

I have to admit that Mark’s logic is immensely puzzling. The way he makes the argument is fundamentally false.

“If you dont support action X then you can be taken to support the evils that action X is ( at least nominally ) attempting to eradicate”.

Right. So if I see a boy steal a chocolate bar from a shop and I don’t want to have him executed, I’m in favour of stealing, right ?

Wrong. It’s up to me to decide what the merits of action X are. I may decide that action X is irrelevant to the evil being targeted. I may decide I don’t trust the personnel taking on the job to carry it out effectively.

I may decide that action X may effective in targeting the evil concerned but that it creates innumerable , far worse, potential evils of its own.

But what I don’t have to do is put up with the proponent of action X trying to shift the burden of proof onto me for his half-ass proposals. If they’re bad ideas, they’re bad ideas, and no end of pontification can shift the responsibility for any evil out there onto me just because I don’t agree with your half-ass idea.

Death Penalty advocates are the most tedious example ( I suspect Mark may well be highly Islamic in that sense ). Because you don’t agree that the Death Penalty is the solution to the problem of violence, ergo, you must be in favour of murder , right ?

Wrong. And its the same with Iraq. Just because I don’t agree with the invasion of Iraq it doesn’t follow that I agree with the Saddam tyranny, any more than I think NOT invading China is a betrayal of Tibet. Is that what we should do, Mark, invade China, as otherwise we are not supporing Tibet and we are personally responsible for its destruction ? How about Russia – should we invade there or else be accused of having the blood of Chechnyan massacres on our hands ?

I doubt it. Its funny because there was a government in the 80s that disapproved of the Saddam tyranny but did nothing to stop it. On the contrary it helped it as it seemed a less worse option than supprting Iran. That country was the US. The government Of Ronald Reagan was not , I suggest , pro-tyranny.

46

Martin Wisse 12.06.04 at 4:04 pm

Besides, Mark is wrong in supposing human rights was why Bush wanted this war: it’s always been the WMD which were given as the reason this war was needed now, not because Saddam was such a bad man.

that reason only popped up with the useful idiots, who thought Bush shared their motivations and later on when it became clear that the WMD issue was not convincing anyone as a post-hoc justification.

Comments on this entry are closed.