IWCA win five figure settlement

[Fisher_Gate]

Unions also pick up the tab when labour candidates fail to keep their deposits. Is that an argument for not running against them?

What strange twists and turns you make. 'Back on planet earth', my goodness

No. And I don't support disaffiliation of unions from the Labour Party either - that would just lead to more depoliticisation. I support the right of unions to put their money into political activity that accords with their policies.

As for 'Back on Planet Earth', the fact is that whatever the leaders say and do, millions of workers are affiliated through their unions to the Labour Party and vote for it - it remains part of the labour movement. People who deny that are living on some other planet as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Is this meant to be a genuine comparison? You were accussed within a Labour Party meeting, not in a publically distributed leaflet. And what you were accussed of in that context was partly correct (the trotskyist bit) and not very (if at all) damaging; indeed from my time in the Labour Party it's the sort of thing that formed a small but sustained part of the party's internal discourse.

Louis Mac

Yeah sure it's a good point - a public leaflet is different to an internal meeting. That's why you shouldn't reach for the lawyer's phone number on every occasion someone says something, even if you know it might be defamatory.

Ironically though, if they said something a council meeting and it was then covered by the press, a defence of 'qualified privilege' would be quite strong. That's why the law is not reliable.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

No. And I don't support disaffiliation of unions from the Labour Party either - that would just lead to more depoliticisation. I support the right of unions to put their money into political activity that accords with their policies.

As for 'Back on Planet Earth', the fact is that whatever the leaders say and do, millions of workers are affiliated through their unions to the Labour Party and vote for it - it remains part of the labour movement. People who deny that are living on some other planet as far as I'm concerned.

You are conflating affiliation to the Labour Party through a trade union and voting for Labour Party candidates, with the existence of something called the labour movement. If there is such a movement, it could be expected to a) move in some unified maner and b) do so in the interest of labour. The evidence for either of these being the case is not currently strong. That being the case the labour movement becomes a comforting nostalgic security blanket.

Louis Mac

 

[Fisher_Gate]

You are conflating affiliation to the Labour Party through a trade union and voting for Labour Party candidates, with the existence of something called the labour movement. If there is such a movement, it could be expected to a) move in some unified maner and b) do so in the interest of labour. The evidence for either of these being the case is not currently strong. That being the case the labour movement becomes a comforting nostalgic security blanket.

Louis Mac

Let's agree to disagree, rather than divert a post about a success for the IWCA into what is basically a 130 year old debate between adherents of the Bakunin and Proudhon tradition on the one hand, and Marx on the other hand?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

You can't rely on the capitalist courts to rule in your favour, even if the weight of legal evidence is on your side.

No, but so what? You've got stuff all chance of getting a retraction any other way.

 

[Random]

Let's agree to disagree, rather than divert a post about a success for the IWCA into what is basically a 130 year old debate between adherents of the Bakunin and Proudhon tradition on the one hand, and Marx on the other hand?

Bluffer.

 

[Geoff Collier]

So Geoff what is your explanation for Labour's out of court settlement? Not that I think you're genuinely interested in the slightest, rather you're much more interested in taking the opportunity to have a dig at the IWCA as you have done previously (and to similarly little effect) over on UKLN.

Louis Mac

I expect that the Labour Party's lawyers urged them to settle because they know so little about the left. Unless they realised they'd crossed the decency threshold in calling Red Action an anarchist group

I didn't have a dig at the so-called IWCA. I believe that I merely asked what their response would be if somebody accused them, for example of having close links to an organisation, some of whose members planted bombs in London for Irish republicans. I didn't know anyone had said that already but know I see the answer. Run to the bourgeoisie for protection - what kind of independence is that?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I expect that the Labour Party's lawyers urged them to settle because they know so little about the left. Unless they realised they'd crossed the decency threshold in calling Red Action an anarchist group

I didn't have a dig at the so-called IWCA. I believe that I merely asked what their response would be if somebody accused them, for example of having close links to an organisation, some of whose members planted bombs in London for Irish republicans. I didn't know anyone had said that already but know I see the answer. Run to the bourgeoisie for protection - what kind of independence is that?

Thanks Geoff for confirming what I'd written previously. Now we can move on.

Louis Mac

 

[newbie]

But the so called "independent" working class association didn't win a libel case. It was an out of court settlement. What would the argument in court have been? That they weren't associated with Red Action, or that RA weren't extremist? Not to mention RA's Irish section (euphemism alert).

Do you seek to bring Urban75 into the legal firing line with euphemisms that the people of Oxford aren't allowed to know about? By quoting you am I republishing something that's liable to get me impoverished and silenced?

What is the IWCA position on open debate, at what point will it next seek to use the courts to curtail freedom of speech?

 

[Random]

What is the IWCA position on open debate, at what point will it next seek to use the courts to curtail freedom of speech?

Who knows!

Better watch out.

 

[newbie]

the rolleyes because you can't believe a political party would attempt to suppress open political debate or because you don't believe they'd do it here?

 

[LLETSA]

the rolleyes because you can't believe a political party would attempt to suppress open political debate or because you don't believe they'd do it here?

What are you seeking 'open political debate' about, exactly?

 

[Random]

the rolleyes because you can't believe a political party would attempt to suppress open political debate or because you don't believe they'd do it here?

Because I can't take you seriously when you call suing the Labour Party for smears to be 'suppressing free speech'.

 

[newbie]

Of course it is. Political smears are commonplace (just read the debates on here). The normal political response is to ignore them or challenge them. Using the courts to limit what may or may not be said is necessarily a restriction on freedom of speech.

 

[october_lost]

Well done IWCA, this thread confirms to me how crap the old left are, auto-labourism indeed

 

[butchersapron]

It doesn't limit free speech in any general sense - only for the local labour party from trying it agian, and it's go them a nice little donation to work with. I doubt the IWCA activcists involved believe in the myth the powerful spread about 'free speech' anyway - not under conditins where the powerful so clearly dicate terms. I didn;t think you were so naive newbie. (That's not a pop - i'm just suprised to see ypu argue that).

 

[aylee]

There was a famous libel case I recollect concerning a local authority accused of 'toytown hitlerism', in (I think) a leaflet, where the local authority sued (Bognor Regis UDC v Campion 1972) [Unfortunately I can't remember the precise facts of the case about how the statement came to be made - some law student out there might be able to look it up - and the significant fact of the case is that a local authority can sue for libel as it can also have a reputation.]

The Bognor Regis case was overruled by the House of Lords in 1993: Derbyshire County Council v Times Newpapers, in which it was held that a local authority cannot sue for libel, because it is not in the public interest that public authorities should be able to sue for defamation.

To similar effect was a ruling from 1997 that the Referendum Party could not sue in defamation. So a political party cannot sue, although if an individual politician could demonstrate that his/her own reputation was besmirched by a statement, then he/she could sue.

 

[newbie]

It doesn't limit free speech in any general sense - only for the local labour party from trying it agian, and it's go them a nice little donation to work with. I doubt the IWCA activcists involved believe in the myth the powerful spread about 'free speech' anyway - not under conditins where the powerful so clearly dicate terms. I didn;t think you were so naive newbie. (That's not a pop - i'm just suprised to see ypu argue that).

It's not what the activists involved believe, nor me or you. The power used to dictate terms in this case is exactly the same power as was used by Maxwell, rather than the power of winning arguments. Maxwell had something to hide. The IWCA isn't a Maxwell, it's a party/strategy that stands or falls on it's political appeal. This is the opposite of transparent, it displays fear of its constituents and sensitivity to an allegation which is unlikely to (now) go away.

None of which makes clear exactly what cannot be said of the IWCA.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Let's agree to disagree, rather than divert a post about a success for the IWCA into what is basically a 130 year old debate between adherents of the Bakunin and Proudhon tradition on the one hand, and Marx on the other hand?

No let's see you prove the existence of a labour movement that can both move in a unified manner and do so in the interests of labour. BTW trying to foreclose a debate by portraying me as an anarchist must have some on here spluttering in disbelief...what would Attica, Monty, Herbie et al say!

Louis Mac

 

[Louis MacNeice]

It's not what the activists involved believe, nor me or you. The power used to dictate terms in this case is exactly the same power as was used by Maxwell, rather than the power of winning arguments. Maxwell had something to hide. The IWCA isn't a Maxwell, it's a party/strategy that stands or falls on it's political appeal. This is the opposite of transparent, it displays fear of its constituents and sensitivity to an allegation which is unlikely to (now) go away.

None of which makes clear exactly what cannot be said of the IWCA.

Newbie do you think the Labour Party wouldn't have gone ahead and fought the case if they thought they could win the argument? The fact that they settled out of court speaks volumes as to who had the 'power of winning arguments'. Or is yours a more general objection to the use of the courts? If so then I think that you, like others on these boards you are limiting the scope of political activity for no apparent good purpose.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[Harold Hill]

So can we expect to see the IWCA defending Galloway's use of the libel laws to clear his name against the Telegraph too?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm

What a fucking pointless and ridiculous post.

 

[newbie]

Newbie do you think the Labour Party wouldn't have gone ahead and fought the case if they thought they could win the argument? The fact that they settled out of court speaks volumes as to who had the 'power of winning arguments'.

Do you think the IWCA would have reached for the courts if they thought they could win the political argument? That the LP bloke didn't have the stomach for that kind of fight isn't that much of a surprise: libel is a very powerful weapon. I'll bet he was prepared to fight it politically though.

The arguments worth winning are the ones that move ordinary people towards your way of thinking- that's what I was thinking about anyway. By refusing to deal with these allegations openly and confront them politically the IWCA is denying the communities concerned the opportunity to make their own minds up. Do you think that trying to keep people in the dark is good politics?

Or is yours a more general objection to the use of the courts? If so then I think that you, like others on these boards you are limiting the scope of political activity for no apparent good purpose.

Cheers - Louis Mac

It's a general objection to restriction of political discourse.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Newbie,

How are the IWCA exactly keeping anyone in the dark? A leaflet was isues/published by the Labour party .Presumably it went to residents on the estate where the IWCA had members. Looks to me a sits the Labour Party who are keeping poiple in the dark by first of all lying in the leaflet and secondly settling out of court.All done and dusted.

 

[montevideo]

job well done. Spend it wisely i say. Big fuck off christmas piss up.

 

[Ryazan]

What would the Wombles do with the cash? Use it for cans of whipped cream for an attempted "fun" insurgency of the working class after merging with CIRCA?

 

[newbie]

Newbie,

How are the IWCA exactly keeping anyone in the dark? A leaflet was isues/published by the Labour party .Presumably it went to residents on the estate where the IWCA had members. Looks to me a sits the Labour Party who are keeping poiple in the dark by first of all lying in the leaflet and secondly settling out of court.All done and dusted.

I haven't seen the leaflet, have no idea what it said, and know little of the background. None of which matters: someone does and reckons that debate about it might clobber the IWCA electoral chances. That debate has been suppressed, the electorate is in the dark, they may have voted differently if that debate had been aired (to reduce it to basest votecounting).

It's in the interests of political parties to obfuscate as much as possible.
It's in the interests of the people to know and understand as much as possible about political parties.

I thought that was obvious.

 

[laptop]

So if I put out a leaflet claiming that the Monster Raving Socialwork Party is closely associated with Libyan Jihadists, and it's not true*, and the MRSP sets Carter-Ruck on me...

This is suppressing debate how?

* Not least because the idea of a Libyan Jihadist is rather unlikely, and because it was in fact the Raving Social Monsterwork Party that had a Tripoli connection... but for the sake of this argument "I" refers to a no-mark local politico with the research capabilities of pondweed.

 

[newbie]

So if I put out a leaflet claiming that the Monster Raving Socialwork Party is closely associated with Libyan Jihadists, and it's not true*, and the MRSP sets Carter-Ruck on me...

This is suppressing debate how?

Debate is public & open. Threat of the courts curtails that.

 

[laptop]

Debate is public & open. Threat of the courts curtails that.

The very first thing I did when I got online in 1986 was to find a discussion board populated by US journalists and ask:

"Why is lying and stupid speech protected?"

I had four thousand-word responses by the next mortning and debate went on for a while

Are you one of the First-Amendment fundamentalists? Do you defend - as my correspondents did - the right to say anything at all, true or not, honestly-held belief or malicious, and - as they put ut - let the free market of ideas sort 'em out?

 

[newbie]

Within the context of political debate there needs to be a distinction between guilt by deed (eg Galloway allegations) and guilt by association (as this appears to be, or as when eg Hatton, Livingstone or Benn were so badly villified). In the former case no, in the latter, yes pretty much, politicians should be free to smear each other (and they should take whatever journalists throw at them).

Allegations of guilt by association are a perfectly legitimate part of political discourse.