Look who is suing 10 Danish newspapers for blaspheming the name of Prophet Mohammed by publishing and/or republishing ”defamatory” pictures of the Prophet? Well there are around 95,000 of them, and they all claim to be direct descendants of Prophet Mohammed.
What is unusual is the venue of the court case. In the normal course of events, it is to be expected that the legal suit will be filed in Denmark, for that’s where the 10 newspapers are based, and where the allegedly blasphemous cartoons were published/republished.
But in an unusual move, Oxford-educated Faisal Yamani, the Saudi lawyer acting for the descendants of Prophet Mohammed filed the defamation suit in Britain instead.
But why Britain? Afterall, the Danish papers are not operating in Britain, and although Bristish newspapers did report on the case, nevertheless in an act of self censorship, none of the major newspapers in Britain published the offending cartoons.
One reason is that if the case is filed in Denmark, chances of winning it is not that good, given the government’s stand on freedom of speech. For the same reason, it is also difficult to bring the case to American where freedom of speech is zealously guarded.
But British defamation laws make it is easier to bring and win libel cases in Britain. It seems that Britain is gaining a dubious reputation as a destination for “libel tourism”, where people who bring libel cases there have little connection with Britain itself.
As examples, consider the following precedents. First, a 2007 case in which Ukrainian businessman and legislator Rinat Akhmetov successfully sued 2 Ukraine-based, Ukrainian-language internet publications in British courts for defaming him.
Then there is a 2005 case in which Saudi billionaire businessman Sheik Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz successfully sued in a British court an American author Rachel Ehrenfeld for defaming him in her book entitled Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed – and How to Stop It. The case was heard in Britain despite the fact that only 23 copies of the book were sold there.
Ebbe Dal, managing director of the Danish national newspaper association, said: “It is unacceptable that Yamani should go to foreign courts and come after us with threats, and it is a pity that the British system allows this to happen.”
But how is Faisal Yamani going to win the case? First he is building a case that the 2005 cartoons, including one of Prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban, were accessible in Britain on the internet. This will give him a basis to commence libel action in Britain.
Then he is going to argue that his clients, being direct descendants of Prophet Mohammed has been defamed by the publication/republication of these cartoons.
British lawyer Mark Stephens explains: “Direct descendants of the Prophet have a particular place within Muslim society. By effectively criticising and making fun of the Prophet you are, by implication, holding them up to scandal, contempt and public ridicule. ”
Already one Danish newspaper has apologized for publishing the cartoons. But in the end, the British judge will need to answer this question: Is that defamatory in British law?
What happens if the British judge were to dismiss the case? Mark Stephens said: “A lot of judges would throw it out, but it is obviously a very highly charged issue and if they do throw it out it becomes political.” So is this a politcal stunt afterall?
Think about it. The cartoons in question were first published in Denmark for local consumption. Later, these cartoons were reproduced in most European countries, which brought about protests and riots in some places. Yet when Egyptian newspapers publish the cartoons, there were practically no reaction. Why? And where is the line between freedom of speech and defamation?
Recent Comments