Publishing the Truth is not a Defence against Libel

I’ve always known the libel laws in the UK are appalling, reading Seditious libel law is a travesty of justice by Evan Harris on Index on Censorship reveals how appalling.

Under the usual, civil, libel laws, if you can show your allegations against someone are true, you can’t be found guilty of libel. But with criminal libel, the truth is not a full defence. You have to show that publication (of the truth) was in the public interest. In theory, you can be convicted for telling the truth. Evan Harris, Index on Censorship.

I don’t understand how telling the truth can still be libel – but then I’m confusing law with justice: I should know better.

2 thoughts on “Publishing the Truth is not a Defence against Libel

  1. Most of the “truth is not a defense” laws in UK, Europe, and Canada were created by legislators under pressure from Jewish groups. The intent of these laws is to make it dangerous for a conscientious individual to raise an alarm when he notices that a protected group is abusing their protections in order to work mischief. If the individual gives the alarm, he may be telling the truth, but he will be exposing the mischief-makers to possible reprisals.

    So, in a sense, these laws are quite similar to what you’d expect if, say, thieving gangs were in (direct or indirect) control of law-making. They’d surely find it to their advantage for people in general to risk legal punishments if they were so bold as to fight for their right to the possession of their own property, or if they were to commit the offensive (to thieves) act of raising a hue and cry over who the thieves are and what the thieves were doing.

    But that is what happened. That is what the Jews have done. They are wrecking your country with immigration laws that do not impose reasonable quality standards on the immigrants. They are wrecking your country by making it blind to any enemy, or to any peril which they do not choose to reveal to the public with the media, which is under their control. And foremost among the enemies which they wish to keep hidden is themselves. So they have made it illegal to tell the truth, when the truth is adverse to their interests, by declaring such truths to be Hate Propaganda.

    The United States, where I live, is not yet quite so corrupt that I can be arrested for telling antisemitic truths. Here, I’m still free (as yet) to declare that an antisemite is simply someone who knows what’s going on. I can point out that the Jews cry out in pain as they attack you, and that their cries find sympathetic ears among people who do NOT know what is going on. I can tell you that Ernst Zundel was in the right in almost every particular of his case against the Jewish Holocaust minions, who, in order to suppress Zundel, invoked that very same “truth is not a defence” legal dogma that so afflicts your country.

    You and your people, and their country, are not merely under attack — though it would not be incorrect to say that you are being attacked. It’s worse. Your enemy has conquered you. You are living under occupation, having to deal with outrageous laws issued by the occupying power. Your democratic processes are mere window dressing, your permitted public discourses mere exercises in mass deception. You’re trying to raise an alarm after your side has been defeated. You can’t win by playing the games your enemy will allow you to play.

  2. “The mistakes of each generation will just fade like a radio station if you drive out of range – Ani DiFranco”

    This quote, which serves as your website’s subtitle, is not commonly true. It would be more accurate and instructive to consider each generation’s mistakes as being the foundation on which the edifice of later generations is built. Most of the time it is not possible to “move out of range” of the consequences of a generation’s big mistakes, any more than you can evade the consequences of a faulty foundation by going to a higher floor of the building.

    Sometimes you just have to tear the building down and rebuild. No matter what the cost of demolition and reconstruction might be, they will be less severe than living in a faulty building when the cracks in the foundation bring the building crashing down with all the people caught in the collapse, by surprise, unprepared and unprotected.

    And if the original problem had been the greediness of scamming building contractors, be very wary, lest they take you for a sucker again.