Several years ago, I and some friends and our wives were having dinner together at one of London's major hotels. We left at about eleven at night, only to be surprised by a mob of protesters in front of the hotel shouting hostile slogans and some abuse. Also present there were policemen who said that the protesters are waiting for the guests of the annual fur dealers dinner to come out of the hotel, and we told the protesters that we are Arab tourists and had nothing to do with the fur business, so they left us alone. We stood there watching after we saw the guests of the annual dinner preparing to exit. They were met with loud chants, signs and pictures of slaughtered animals, while the police watched without interfering as the protesters were exercising their right to freedom of speech and opinion. Then as I and a friend were standing near a car, a woman tried to enter it, wearing a long fur coat. However, a [female] protestor intercepted her and spat on her, and was followed by another protestor who took to kicking the side of the car very hard. Then quickly, the police apprehended the woman and the kicker, because their conduct had breached the limits of their personal freedoms and violated other people's freedoms. I did not need to witness that scene to be reminded of the limits of what is permissible and what is prohibited in England. I worked in the past as shift leader at Reuters's office in Beirut, and had trained in the press's own street, or Fleet Street. But I perhaps learned more about law than about journalism, because they in the West fear litigation over libel the most, litigation that may cost hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation and legal fees. In fact, it is my familiarity with law, and some luck, that has helped me win a libel lawsuit I had filed, and another filed against me. The Press Complaints Commission also rejected a complaint by an Israeli ambassador against Al-Hayat and me, in my capacity as its editor in chief, in the 1990s. For example, I know that if I criticize a person then this is an opinion, but if I attack an entire people, then this is racism punishable by law. If I said that a given English Minister is a jackass, then that's an opinion, but if I said that the minister is a thief, this would be stating a fact that I must either prove or lose. The [female] protestor in front of the hotel came back to my mind over the weekend, as I read a local American news story that became the subject of much controversy. According to this story, the followers of Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral of Matthew Snyder, a U.S. soldier who died in Iraq, and displayed signs such as ”Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “God Hates Fags” and “Priests Rape Boys”. In the aftermath of this incident, Albert Snyder, the father of the deceased soldier, sued Fred Phelps, the head of the Westboro Church, on the grounds that the latter violated Snyder's personal liberty, and his right to organize a procession for his son away from any external interference. The Court ordered Phelps to pay Snyder 10.9 million dollars in compensation for the emotional distress he had suffered. Phelps then appealed the lower court's decision before the Supreme Court, which overturned, with a majority vote of 8 to 1, the decision of the first court, and expressed its support for Phelps's right to express his opinion under the First Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees the freedom of speech. This happened despite the fact that the Westboro Church is clearly seeking fame, as Samuel Alito, the only judge who voted against the decision, said. Its members do not number more than 70, and they are almost all relatives of its president Fred Phelps. They frequently protest in front of the funerals of dead soldiers and homosexuals, whom they describe in derogatory and hostile words that border on outright profanity. But it seems that Phelps is familiar with the U.S. law just like I am familiar with the English libel law. Phelps and his group organized their protest at a distance of one thousand feet away from the soldier's funeral, and the law stipulates that the minimum distance should be one hundred feet. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court supported his argument that he did not meddle with the private nature of the funeral. What concerns me personally regarding laws in the West is the part pertaining to slander and libel cases, which I found to be on the side of the defendant in the United States, and the plaintiff in Great Britain. To win a case in London, it is sufficient for me to prove that what was written about me is wrong, or let the other party prove that what it wrote is correct, and if it fails to do so it would lose. In the United States, however, it is not sufficient for me to prove that what is written about me is wrong. The First Amendment to the Constitution is clear on the freedom of speech, and the plaintiff must prove that the incorrect claims made against it were intentional, or that they have caused it financial damage such as losing a deal or losing business. It is very rare to see a court order a fine in punishment for what the defendant said or wrote. This means that all those who want to sue for libel and slander should do so in London if they can, since the city has become a destination for ‘libel tourism'. The late Khalid bin Mahfouz won all the cases he filed in London, regarding the allegations of his support for terrorism and other allegations, cases that he would have not otherwise won in the United States. [email protected]
