Threatened – Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion

Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion has been legally threatened by a couple of key members of a group called Anglicans for Israel in the UK.

The complaint has to do with  a comment (now removed) under a blog entry back in February  that prompted wrath, and rather than directly approach Richard Bartholomew,  a solicitor (lawyer) letter arrived. He is being accused of malice. (Shooter is Haw Shooter, referred to in the February post and now the campaign director for Anglicans for Israel)

Americans reading this will no doubt be incredulous that the nationally-reported consequences of a public, politically-motivated act by a person who is again today involved in political activism could be suppressed by libel law –especially when the person concerned offered a justification for their act at the time. Prepare for incredulity overload when I add that McIlwaine and Shooter purport to be “libertarians”.

Of course, I utterly reject the claim of “bad faith” and “clear malice”. All I did was to clarify what was meant by the “CND submarine incident” alluded to in the Guardian. I have not related an incident from Shooter’s private life, nor have I even hinted that Shooter is today prone to attacking other people’s property or breaking the law – or that his court appearance means that he is today unsuitable for any particular role or employment. The accusation is ludicrous; apparently, I can note that Shooter was expelled from Lewisham Conservative Association, but I should not be able to say what that was for! In fact, one reason I made sure that I included as many details as possible was in order to avoid accusations that I was somehow misrepresenting Shooter – and had I not explained why he had been expelled from Lewisham Conservative Assocation, readers might have imagined far worse.

Needless to say, I am currently taking legal advice. I don’t yet know how responsible I am for comments left on my blog, but this is something that should be of interest to the entire blogging community. I have, however, decided to remove the comment for the time being. I also here clarify (as a courtesy only) that a conviction resulting in a fine in 1984 would indeed be spent by now.

British libel law is different than the US, so I encourage North American bloggers to bring themselves up to speed and take a stand.
It’s interesting that the group of which Haw Shooter is campaign director was mentioned in no more than a paragraph of the entire post. The fact the Guardian mentioned the fine in 1984 remains a matter of public record. The probability Anglicans for Israel are looking for attention is a reasonable assumption, and theatening is how they are attempting to get it.

The difficulty is Richard Bartholomew is in the UK, and may have to do more than remove a comment. Richard Bartholomew is a man of courtesy and exceptional research skills, and he is doing exactly what he needs to do under British law.
There is no reason Guardian blogs can’t weigh in and have their say, as can the newspaper that published the original information in 1984, as can Anglicans; and meantime we in North America can let Richard Bartholomew know we value his blog and his work.

BBC Action Network – How to avoid Defamation and Libel
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Update:  dcypl picked this up.
Good. If Anglicans for Isreal want attention bloggers can can certainly oblige them with civility - and with the respective difficult questions their approach to this blogger has raised.
The Yorkshire Ranter
mediawatchwatch.org UK