… lying is shameful… was one of the most important idioms I remember from high school French class. But evidently it is not as important to France 2, the state run French television channel, that seems oddly reluctant to look into its coverage of the now infamous Mohammed al-Dura case. According to Clifford May’s excellent new article reviewing the case so far, instead of investigating, the French network now threatens to sue all those who defame it.
Well, they can start with me. I think France 2 is a morally reprehensible institution that has promoted a hugely inflammatory lie. Through their reporting as fact that young Mohammed al-Dura was shot by Israeli soldiers when all evidence now points to the cause of this young boy’s death to have been fire from the Palestinians themselves. This dishonest propagandistic approach to the news on the part of France II not only endangered Israeli lives, but obviously Palestinian ones as well by encouraging the self-destructive Intifada II which was so ruinous for their people, economy and culture.
Shall I call my lawyer, France 2? Let me know.
Is this what they call the Big Lie?
How many suicide bombers went out and killed themselves and dozens of others for the sake of revenge for this one child?
I got to say when I look at this and the weird situation with the Italian journalist I am beginning to wonder who is in charge of these people? Can they just come and go say what they like and drag God knows how many people along for the ride?
We are always hearing how heads of state should be accountable..what about France 2?
ìAccording to Clifford May’s excellent new article reviewing the case so far, instead of investigating, the French network now threatens to sue all those who defame it.î
Something also similar occurred to Deborah Lipstadt. Iíve recently been reading her ìHISTORY ON TRIAL: MY DAY IN COURT WITH DAVID IRVING.î
http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/
Many European and British courts are infamous for allowing lawsuits to protect the guilty. And letís not forget that John Kerryís lawyers sent letters to media outlets trying to scare the hell out of them regarding giving air time to the Swift Boat accusers.
I’m a lawyer, Roger. And truth is always the perfect defense to defamation.
I was thinking the other day that the relationship between Europe and the U.S. has really gone full circle from the U.S. as child of Europe (bastard or rebel, perhaps, but child nonetheless) to now. where it really does seem the Europeans act like rebellious, semi-powerless children in response to our paternal role (or at least just deeply bitter and thus burdensome seniors).
Then I came upon Victor Davis Hanson’s current piece entitled:
“Eurospeak
Sorting out the teenage sass”, which hits upon the analogy better than I could. Link:
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson030405.html
Poignant excerpts:
“….
“So if Europe sounds conflicted, that’s because it is. One symptom of such a troubled patient is its blustering rhetoric ó as if words can mask reality, as if idealistic vocabulary and shots at America can substitute for faith in Western values, sacrifice, and risk-taking. One reason that Europe understands so well the braggadocio and sense of inferiority of the impotent Muslim world is that it suffers precisely from some of these same maladies in its own problematic relationship with the United States. A Muslim in Europe who puts a picture of bin Laden on his wall is the equivalent of a European chanting that Bush is Hitler: The Arab does not really wish to destroy the opulent European network that he counts on, nor does the European in jeans with a cell phone truly wish the U.S. would stop protecting his lifestyle. Yet each feels terrible about his own hypocrisy and accompanying appetites for what he professedly hates, and so looks to express angst on the cheap.
“….
“What should the U.S. do about these aggravating moments, these 40-something nesters who like staying in the house but not maintaining or repairing it? Like all parents, ignore the childish slander and wish our Europeans well on their belatedly new lives. So close the door firmly with a warm hug, and remind them that they are still part of the family after all ó always welcome for visits, but of course never quite encouraged to move back in.”
Roger:
You just don’t understand the new journalism. Fake but accurate is the new ethic. France 2 was just capturing the spirit of the event. When you know the real truth the actual details are incidental. Your old fashion ideas about truth and honesty are a thing of the past. First you decide what the proper political aspects of a story are and then you manufacture the facts to suit your overall goal. You can’t expect France 2 to wait for real events to prove their dialectic correct. That takes too long and sometimes the truth gets in the way of the goal. Just let the professionals decide what the truth is and accept it.
ìI’m a lawyer, Roger. And truth is always the perfect defense to defamation.î
It is? Some people in Great Britain would describe you as being naively utopian. In the real world, sometimes the truer the accusation—the higher the money awarded to the liar. It is probably a rare event when a Jeffrey Archer is sent to jail for perjury:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1424501.stm
Deborah Lipstadt endured pure hell to ultimately defeat John Irving. This is why so many like the despicable John Kerry and the previously mentioned gentleman are so often able to intimidate people.
Somehow, this film seems suddenly relevant. I especially found this comment, entitled “The French really caved during WWII”, interesting.
British Libel Law
England’s Libel Laws are regarded as ” plaintiff – friendly ” due to the fact that British courts do not have the First Amendment protections to consider and apply the way that United States courts do. Many questionable statements that would receive English libel verdicts would not even be actionable in the United States.
Differences in the United States and British Libel Cases
The Burden of Proving Truth
British common law ” presumes in the plaintiff’s favour that the words [ in suit ] are false, unless and until the defendant proves the contrary.” Along with the burden of proving truth comes the threat of being assessed with aggravated damages if the defendant’s attempts to prove truth fails. The British requirement that the defendant proves truth is in direct conflict with the First Amendment principles of the United States. In Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps( 1986 ) the Supreme Court held that under the First Amendment, ” the common law presumption that defamatory speech is false cannot stand when a plaintiff seeks damages against a media defendant for speech of public concern.” The plaintiff must prove fault on the part of the defendant in American libel cases.
Britain’s Strict Liability Standard
In 1964, the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan created the policy of ” actual malice ” in determining liability in libel cases. In America ” actual malice ” provides an exception for publishers who publish content that is false, but believe it to be true when they publish it. In England, however, ” under common law a publisher is liable for any false statement of fact, even where the publisher honstly believed the statement to be true at the time of publication and acted in accordance with reasonable standards of journalism.
Public officials (different from public entities) may sue for libel under Britain’s strict liability system. For example, British politicians, unlike American politicians, can file libel suits against reporters, publishers, etc. for misinformation.
When will the MSM, everywhere they are, cease to be complicit in murder and, instead, chose to conspire to expand freedom?
Dear Mr. Simon, I am a screen writer in LA and have been an avid reader of your blog ever since I first discovered it a year ago. I too have grown sick of the simplistic liberal POV on world events (a constant onslaught in LA). I was a life long democrat until 9/11, but increasing think they’ve lost their way. I didn’t know how else to contact you, but I found this link and I thought you might be interested in it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-17649-1510003,00.html
D.T. and Peter UK
I was unaware of the great difference btwn UK and US law. So then, are we unanimous that Roger stay out of the UK and, need I say, the SLC just across the Channel (or only travel under an alias)?
I read Phillip’s link. The whole thing is worth the read, but the first few paragraphs …. I’d never quite thought of it that way. So true.
Two minor problems with your short piece today.
1. There is no proof the boy is dead.
2. One of the reporters on the story for France 2 admitted in an affidavit that he lied.
The Israelis didn’t do it.