We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Stop Dale Vince silencing critics of his Hamas comments Dale Vince, the green oligarch and wind turbine tycoon, is suing Guido Fawkes for reporting what he said about Hamas on Times Radio when he compared the Hamas terrorists to freedom fighters.
Dismal tax trougher Vince is suing the editor Paul Staines personally for daring to publish the actual words Vince said in an interview with the Times Radio’s Stig Abell.
This is pure distilled lawfare and for the first time in 20 years Guido is asking contribution to their legals costs. As a longtime fan of Mr. Fawkes, I have chipped in and I urge anyone else who dislikes the Green Mafia to do likewise here.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The green mafia is just economic feudalism with a veneer of new age save the planet theocracy.
If you don’t believe the feudalism bit, look up on how many £billions the royal estate will take in rents for wind power.
And, yes Ive donated.
(From the OP article): “Guido would, in Dale’s fantasy, become samizdat . . . “
As if.
(Would be fun to read the actual court pleadings on this, to see how they worded a claim that could survive more than seven minutes of a judge’s time.)
This is outrageous. £25 duly donated.
Thinking about it some more, a couple of thoughts.
Firstly, Britain’s libel laws desperately need reforming.
Secondly, couldn’t Dale Vince be prosecuted for expressing support for a banned organisation?
So, shouldn’t he also be suing Times Radio?
Donated!
@Dog
.
Probably, but the initial problem is always the fear of costs of (defending against) litigation.
’…to see how they worded a claim that could survive more than seven minutes of a judge’s time.’
Modern judges? Probably not that hard. Who are the lawyers? It’s not the foxbatterer’s mob is it?
Dale Vince and his ilk are lowlifes, who cannot deal with the fact of having their own vile words quoted back at them.
The case is without merit, and I hope it is dismissed. Even so, I’ll chip in. I also am a member of the Free Speech Union, which acts on behalf of people whom such cunts want to muzzle for their own ideological reasons.
I am also a FSU member and have donated £25. I hope Paul gets from £65k to £100K soon.
Thanks.
Fitting that where I started out is trying stop me being finished off.
Ping.
Good luck Guido.
Guido is part of the establishment. I wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire. Likely outcome is that he’s done something to get himself into trouble and all the cash will be flushed down the drain trying to save his fat ass.
The green mafia is just economic feudalism with a veneer of new age save the planet theocracy.
The remark about another man’s freedom fighter is only applicable if they are indeed fighting for freedom, not the case with a group hell bent on implementing a religious theocracy which is the absolute opposite of freedom, much like the green theocracy Vince supports.
Also, much like a certain Mr G Fawkes wanted.
Okay, here’s my question, set out in more detail than the too-subtle one I typed above:
What is described above from the OP could never survive as a legal claim, even in the UK, even in front of a whacko leftist UK judge.
What I cannot find are the details of this lawsuit. What is it that Vince is actually claiming? He must be wording this in some way that resembles a description of a bad act, but this ain’t it.
Even in the UK (so far as I know), displaying someone’s actual utterances cannot be libel or slander or defamation.
So what is he claiming as a bad act?
“So what is he claiming as a bad act?”
bobby b,
As I understand it, and I probably do not, m’lud, Mr Vince is claiming misuse of his personal data – contrary to GDPR (KB-2024-001676 Vince v Staines).
Ah, thank you! I shall commence reading.
Okay, it’s basically a “false light” claim, in which the defendant supposedly edited and displayed (out of context) the actual words used by the claimant in such a manner as to intentionally mislead as to what the claimant meant, leaving the claimant harmed in his reputation. (That’s my own wording – apologies if it’s not technically what the lawbooks call it.)
Interesting that Vince is willing to publicly proclaim, through this lawsuit, that it is vile and reputation-injuring to make it seem as if he favors – or even doesn’t hate – Hamas.
I’m guessing that, before he saw a way to profit from hurting Staines, he would have not been too upset over being considered a Hamas supporter. The possibility of money has a way of amplifying pain and emotional trauma.
@bobby b
the defendant supposedly edited and displayed (out of context) the actual words used by the claimant in such a manner as to intentionally mislead as to what the claimant meant, leaving the claimant harmed in his reputation.
Wow, if you can sue someone for that I think I just worked out how Trump can make his next billion dollars.
This was done to Mark Steyn – by climate fraudster Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann. Someone calls you out – and instead of answering them back, or admitting they have a point, you “take them to court” – destroying them with legal bills and endless delays, and perhaps (if the jury is “Woke” – as big city juries normally are) winning the legal case – in defiance of both the facts and logical arguments.
As for Mr Dale Vince – he is a terrorist supporting swine. And Mr Vince shows how things are connected – why should someone who makes a fortune from taxpayer subsidized “Green Energy” support Islamic terrorists? On the surface there is no connection – but there is a connection, both are fashionable causes of the “liberal” establishment elite – the word “liberal” having been utterly reversed, it once meant pro liberty – now it means hater of liberty.
All of this could have been avoided if the word “allegedly” had been used. Thousands of lawyers in this country have made a fortune over that word.
Joe Smith, calling Guido an establishment figure proves that comedy isn’t dead. Do you do TV as well?
I have sometimes wondered if quoting from The Qu’ran, Hadith and Sunna to state Muhammed was not a nice man* would land you in trouble for “Hate Speech”. Obviously this is somewhat moot because before the lawyers got to you a mob would tear you limb from limb. Then the lawyers would get involved because you caused this by hurting the mob’s feelings by quoting from their own holy texts. Is this double-think? Yes, but then “Queers for Palestine”…
*Well, he was a gent in that whilst he married Aisha when she was six he waited till she was nine to have his wicked/divine (opinions differ) way with her.
As a lawyer this is really an interesting question. Leaving aside the public figure and false light questions, is it libel to publish, if untrue, a claim that someone holds a particular opinion? And does the intended, or actual, audience matter? Is amplification to the “wrong” audience the libel?
1. “Staghounds said Hitler was right about the Jews”.
2. “Staghounds said Hitler was right about tobacco”.
3. Staghounds said “I think Hamas are justifiably fighting for their freedom” ?
4. Said in a synagogue?
5. Said in Bradford?
6. Said in Bradford, recorded by the defendant, and played in a synagogue?
Even under British law, I don’t think it’s ever been defamatory to say that someone holds an opinion, however ugly. Acting on the opinion, that’s different.
cf. https://eu.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2004/05/30/judge-gay-label-no-longer/50930547007/
I have donated but I think Guido has a fight on his hands here and I’m far from sure he’ll win.
Staghounds – yes indeed, especially as “Guido” directly quoted Mr Dale Vince, and in context. Mr Vince supports a side in the war between Israel and the Islamic (or “Islamist” if one must use this word) terrorists – and the side he supports is clearly the Islamist terrorists, regardless of the fact that Islamist terrorists have been responsible for many attacks in the United Kingdom and other countries. Any idea, by anyone, that they, the Islamist terrorists, would become peaceful if only the seven million Jews in Israel were exterminated in a second Holocaust, is absurd (utterly absurd) – the struggle (the conflict) would continue around the world. If there were no Jews to kill – there would still be plenty of Christians, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or Atheists, or even other Muslims (of the “wrong” sort) to kill.
Joe Smith – a good indication of whether or not someone is a member of the establishment is whether they benefit, in a large scale way, from government spending and regulations – another indication of whether or not someone is a member of the establishment is whether they support and influence policy.
Mr Dale Vince benefits, in a large scale way, from government “Green” subsidies and “Green” regulations – he also (unsurprisingly) strongly pushes these establishment policies.
Mr Dale Vince would seem to be very much a member of the modern establishment.
I would make a guess (I could be mistaken) that Mr Dale Vince has never been elected to public office – yet he influences policy far more than those of us who have been elected, elected by the people, to public office.
In a democracy – that should not be so.
Technically in that interview he didn’t say the words: ‘Hamas are freedom fighters’. Guido has a headline ‘Multi-Million pound donor to the Labour Party says Hamas are ‘Freedom fighters’ (https://order-order.com/2024/03/13/multi-million-pound-donor-to-labour-says-hamas-are-freedom-fighters/). Guido’s quote ‘Freedom fighters’ does appear in the interview and I think a fair viewer of the interview could come away thinking that Mr Dale Vince does think Hamas are freedom fighters. But also I think Mr Dale Vince could make the argument that when he said, “I think one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist” he didn’t mean for the listener to reach the conclusion that he thinks Hamas are freedom fighters. Like maybe he was trying to do that thing where a politician will say something that is ambiguous so two audiences that have contradicting views can both feel the politician supports his cause. It could be that he privately thinks Hamas are terrorists but he has a bunch of friends that think differently and he uses this remark to stay in their good graces without actually saying Hamas are freedom fighters.