I have a fair degree of respect and affection for the British blog, Harry’s Place. Theoretically a blog of the Left, it is pragmatic rather than dogmatic. Sensibly pro -Jewish and generally pro-Israel, it argues fiercely against what it stubbornly persists in calling “Islamism”; clearly much of the “Islamist” behaviour it condemns is simply “Islamic”. The main contributors are intelligent and articulate. Comments are loosely moderated. Some comments are idiotic, of course, but by and large there is genuine debate of a high standard. Above all, there is robust and humorous banter, some of it deliciously vulgar. Fights break out, but grudges are not held for long. More than any blog I know, Harry’s Place has a genuine exchange of views, and in the rough-and-tumble, nobody gets too big for his boots. Other websites preach to the converted, and, perhaps because of this, such disagreements as do arise provoke bitterness and egomania (no names, no pack-drill).

I was therefore very concerned to learn that Harry’s Place is being sued for libel by Mohammed Sawalha, President of the British Muslim Initiative, and supporter of Hamas. Rebecca reported on the threat of action; now it is actually happening:  

Last Friday, in the wake of a closely argued debate about whether Mohammed Sawalha, the President of the British Muslim Initiative, had used the phrase “Evil Jew” or “Jewish Lobby” in a speech, Harry’s Place received a letter. The letter is from Dean and Dean, a firm of solicitors who are acting for Mr Sawalha. Mr Sawalha has demanded that we take down certain articles from Harry’s Place, and publish an apology “in the attached wording”.

The solicitors have failed to attach the apology that Mr Sawalha insists we publish. That omission matters little, as we have no intention of apologising to him at all, nor of taking down any article.

We have responded to Mr Sawalha’s solicitors, through Mishcon de Reya, who are acting for us.

Mr Sawalha claims that we have “chosen a malevolent interpretation of a meaningless word”. In fact, we did no more than translate a phrase which appeared in an Al Jazeera report of Mr Sawalha’s speech. When Al Jazeera changed that phrase from “Evil Jew” to “Jewish Lobby”, we reported that fact, along with the statement that it had been a typographical error.

Mr Sawalha says that the attribution of the phrase “Evil Jew” to him implies that he is “anti-semitic and hateful”. Notably, he does not take issue with our reporting of the revelation, made in a Panorama documentary in 2006, that he is a senior activist in the clerical fascist terrorist organisation, Hamas. The BBC report disclosed that Mr Sawalha “master minded much of Hamas’ political and military strategy” and in London “is alleged to have directed funds, both for Hamas’ armed wing, and for spreading its missionary dawah”.

Hamas is an organisation which recently took power in Gaza by means of a violent coup, in which they consolidated their power by systematically murdering their Palestinian political opponents. It operates by deliberately targetting innocent Israel civilians in terrorist attacks: a tactic which it has used to stymie any prospect of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestine.

Hamas is both racist and genocidal. Its foundational document, the Hamas Covenant is little more than a racist diatribe against Jews.

I am not against libel laws when used to protect people’s reputation from lies, but, as David T of Harry’s Place asks, does a supporter of Hamas have a reputation to defend? The UK’s libel laws were not intended to further the interests of an aggressive ideology like Islam, which is bent on crushing free speech. This is not the first of such cases. See this post on Rachel Ehrenfeld. For some time now, our libel laws have been the last refuge of the scoundrel; now they are an instrument of Jihad.

I am pleased to see that Harry’s Place is getting support, even from those who may not agree with its politics. Douglas Murray and Martin Bright had intended to speak at IslamExpo, but have now pulled out. While this leaves the Muslims unchallenged, it was a correct and principled decision. Douglas Murray comments succinctly:

I will not come on a platform hosted by people carrying out legal action against a deeply admirable and informed proponent of free speech.  I hope your debate benefits from its newly re-found uniformity.

There is more support here from a number of American bloggers. I think we can add New English Review to the list.