31 July 2007 Blog Home : July 2007 : Permalink
Oliver also refers to the fact that I had to get the Indie lawyers to contact the blog Harry's Place to take down an allegation against me. I have never threatened legal action against anyone before - indeed, as regular readers know, I link all the time to people who criticise me, often very severely - but the site made a really outrageous accusation against me, on a par with suggesting I indulge in credit card fraud, or mug grannies, and just as preposterous, so I felt I had no choice really. I've always defended the libel laws if they are used properly - to prevent people saying outrageously, howlingly untrue things about you. Normally I let weird things that are said about me go - life's too short, the truth will out etc - but it's a website I've written for in the past, so I thought I ought to make a rare legal interjection to put the record straight. I'm glad the site accepts that what they said has abolutely no evidence for it at all, and had to be withdrawn immediately.
Even if we ignoring the initial post (archived here for prosterity) and what it may have said and simply concentrate on the replacement text this seems to be a rather odd interpretation of the words written. The replacement post says (in full):Sadly Johann Hari is threatening me with defamation proceedings. He takes the view that this piece, and the comments which follow it, contain defamatory material.
Practically speaking, I am neither able, nor prepared, to hand edit articles and comments in order to meet threats of legal action. Therefore I have chosen to take the article down and have removed all comments.
I have occasionally closed quotes or removed articles when asked to correct an inaccurate statement about a person on this blog. I think that is the proper and responsible thing for a person who has a blog to do.
I am particularly sad that the first threat of legal action should have come from a journalist, and from a person who I regard as a friend.
I am not proposing to discuss this issue further.
It is odd to see how this response is equated in Hari's mind to "I'm glad the site accepts that what they said has abolutely no evidence for it at all, and had to be withdrawn immediately." To any neutral obsever (e.g. me) there is no line anywhere that says that the original auther accepts he wrote something with no evidence and it is clear that the post was only withdrawn because the author figures he has better things to spend hsi time and money on than deal with trying to defend against a defamation suit.Let us say that I wanted to argue that I did not, in fact make "a really outrageous accusation against me, on a par with suggesting I indulge in credit card fraud, or mug grannies".
In order to do this, I would have to repeat the two lines to which Johann (in my view, unreasonably) objects, and therefore risk the waste of time and money associated with litigation.
So, as you can see, I am handicapped.
Well I'm happy to assist here, and Johann can sic his legal eagles on me if he wishes. I'll note that what will happen here is a lot more adverse publicity that he most likely wouldn't have got if he'd decided to eschew the legal approach....When presented with an uncomfortable argument, serious editors usually invite a critic to present a clear account of what is said, correct mistakes, and argue with interpretations and extrapolations. The trouble with looking for a critic in the British media is that normal intellectual standards are collapsing over here. At this writing, even the once-respected BBC has admitted to fixing competitions and deceiving its viewers as a matter of routine. The behavior of much of the press is worse, and if you trawl what used to be called Fleet Street for a reviewer you run the risk of picking up Johann Hari, who from almost the first paragraph of his piece in your last issue, misleads your readers.
I was, I am told, brought up by left-wing parents who raised me “to see Orwell in Catalonia as his moral archetype.” Their indoctrination, apparently, makes me confront all great issues with the question, “what would Orwell do?”
As if.
I make clear in the introduction that my parents were ex-communists who remained conventional members of the late-twentieth-century left. They didn’t “raise me” to see Orwell as “a moral archetype.” Indeed, I’m not sure that they ever read Orwell themselves. If they had, they would have hated his argument about totalitarianism because, as I say again in the introduction, they did not see a moral equivalence between communism and Nazism. For my part, it’s true that I did start Homage to Catalonia a few years ago, but to my shame I never finished it. I would no more ask “What would Orwell do?” than I would “What would Jesus do?”
Hari makes up these stories about my mother and father solely so he can declare that I am an “ostentatious claimant of George Orwell’s mantle.” This would indeed be a preposterously self-aggrandizing claim to make if I had ever made it. But I haven’t, in print or in private.
Having misrepresented my parents, he goes on to misrepresent my book.
So let me do a little summarising here.