Big Libel Gig podcast and video

The Little Atoms Radio show, hosted by Neil Denny and Rebecca Watson was backstage at the Big Libel gig interviewing acts and campaigners including Simon Singh, Tim Minchin, Marcus Brigstocke, Tracey Brown, Richard Wiseman, Brian Cox, Ben Goldacre, Dara O’Briain, Ariane Sherine, Ed Byrne, Shappi Khorsandi and Robin Ince. The show contains some bad language and a whole load of libel. The song at the end of the show is Change the Libel Laws by Sly and Reggie, The Suburban Pirates.

You can listen here.

and watch Rebecca’s videos here.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Danes ask EU to curb English libel law

Depending how you look at it, the debate over English libel law became more absurd/serious this week, with Denmark’s justice minister asking the EU to intervene to prevent a proposterous libel claim against Danish newspapers going ahead in London.

EU Observer reports:

On Monday, the Danish government said that they had had enough. Danish justice minister Lars Barfoed demanded that Brussels step in to prevent lawyer Faisal Yamani from suing the Danish papers for damages in British courts on behalf of 95,000 descendents of the prophet who say they and their faith have been defamed.

The Danish papers in question had published cartoons of the prophet Mohamed, and refused to remove them from their websites.

Now, bad as English libel law is, we at least cannot sue for libelling the dead in this country. So how could this claim go ahead? Possibly if the claimants could show that they had suffered in their communities as a result of the publication. But that does seem pretty far-fetched.

Still, we must be embarrassed when a fellow EU member is so concerned about our libel laws. Things have to change.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Tributes for veteran Sudanese human rights champion

Abdel Salam Hassan Abdel Salam, who was murdered in London last weekend, was a guiding light of Sudan’s human rights movement.

A poet and lawyer – in that order, he would have said – and an unbowed secularist, he was also an equally committed student of Islam and classical Arabic, who coined the term al mashru’ al medani, “the civil project,” as a deliberate riposte to the Islamists’ so-called al mashru’ al hadhari or “civilization project”.

The motto served well for his work in exile from Sudan, in London as a leading human rights activist and champion of rights for women and non-Muslims, northern and southern Sudanese alike.

He was found dead in his home in south London, apparently stabbed to death in the early hours of 12 March. Police told the Guardian newspaper they are probing any connections between his death and his work promoting human rights in Sudan and helping torture victims seek redress.

Formerly chairman of the Sudan Human Rights Organization, re-founded in exile, he was among the first to step up and make the case for human rights and democracy as integral to a lasting peace as the Sudanese civil war ground to its bitter end.

After working to ensure Sudanese human rights with Justice Africa and later the Redress Trust a south London rights organisation which helps torture victims around the world, he was able to return to Khartoum again, and lay plans to end his long exile and resume his work at home.

During his time with Justice Africa, they and he shared office space with Index on Censorship in north London.  Henderson Mullin, Index CEO and publisher at the time recalled him as a “gentle giant” much liked by all. “He was a warm hearted and quietly intelligent man whose work for peace and democracy in Sudan kept him passionate but rarely angry, committed but never intransigent.”

Colleague and friend Alex de Waal described him as an unflinching advocate for human rights. Abdel Salam was, he said, “one of a remarkable generation of Sudanese intellectuals… who possessed a vivid curiosity about the complexities and paradoxes of their country.” He had a keen sense of the social and political context for making those rights real, ready to both dispute and mock both the excesses of Islamist zealots, and those who were intimidated by them.

And colleagues from the Redress Trust said they would “greatly miss his depth of knowledge and commitment and the conviviality with which he enriched our daily lives.”  He was divorced and leaves an adult daughter.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Azerbaijan – Remembering a brave journalist

Last Tuesday was exactly five years since the threats hanging over  the head of Azerbaijan’s popular investigative journalist Elmar Huseynov were finally carried out. The 38-year-old Huseynov, founder and chief editor of the weekly journal Monitor, was shot seven times with a silenced pistol in the stairwell of his apartment in capital Baku.

Enquiries into the death of the famous journalist have been condemned as vague and half-hearted — with neither the hit man nor those behind the killing ever brought to trial. The investigation remains unproductive five years after the tragedy, so few Azerbaijanis believe the case will ever be solved. Huseynov’s colleagues and human rights watchdogs say the death was politically motivated and had been contracted to silence his work. The assassination was a decisive slap in the face to an already curtailed media.

Huseynov was the most prominent and outspoken among the few Azerbaijani journalists who dared to write investigative articles. He revealed embedded corruption, lawlessness and power abuse, often involving high-ranking members of the government and close associates of the president.

Monitor stood out from much of the mainstream Azerbaijan media, which continues to remain under total state control. Husneyov also founded the Bakinskiy Bulvar and Bakinskie Vedomosty newspapers, which were known for critical reporting and hard-hitting commentary. Few journalists in the Caucuses are willing to cover politically sensitive topics but Huseynov produced numerous investigative articles at great personal risk, receiving death threats and heavy fines.

The Azerbaijani authorities constantly harassed Huseynov. He faced scores of politicised lawsuits — that could result in imprisonment and / or hefty libel fines —  dozens of threats and bribes, all aimed at stopping his work. On many occasions, the authorities attempted to close down businesses that printed Monitor and confiscated copies of the journal from newsstands. The government repeatedly charged him with defaming the Azerbaijani population, insulting the honour and dignity of government officials, and spreading libellous information.

But this intimidations and harassments did not discourage Huseynov. In one of his interviews, he likened his way of journalism to “guerrilla fighting”. He never shied away from personal risks. He was courageous and tough on the government’s record on human rights abuses.

The assassination of Elmar Huseynov on 2 March 2005 led to international demands for an honest investigation to bring the killers to justice. Then Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis, said, “I am shocked by the brutal murder of Elmar Huseynov, which has all the hallmarks of a contract killing and I condemn it in strongest terms”.

The Azerbaijani authorities were quick to deny that the government was connected to this vicious crime. President Ilham Aliyev called the murder a “black spot” on the country’s international image. He assured the family, colleagues and public at large that justice would be done. The death was designated as “terror act” and the investigation mandate was later transferred from the Office of Prosecutor General to the Ministry of the National Security (MNS). Although two ethnic Azerbaijani citizens of Georgia — Tahir Khubanov and Teymuraz Aliyev — were declared to be the prime suspects, their photos and information on their alleged roles are still classified. Georgia refuses to extradite the two men back to Azerbaijan.

Today, the official investigation remains stalled. With the killers at large and no clear evidence of who actually ordered the death, Elmar’s widow Rushana speculates that someone from the government ordered the assassination of her husband. When she published her suspicions she received death threats. Rushana, with her young son, is now a political migrant in Norway.

Azerbaijan continues to record a downtrend trajectory in international freedom indexes, with Reporters Sans Frontiers ranking Azerbaijan 146th out of 175 countries. The state-orchestrated media crackdown ensured that Azerbaijan lags well behind the other two states in Southern Caucasus – Georgia and Armenia. Amnesty International said the opposition journalists in Azerbaijan are “increasingly living under the threat of politically motivated arrests, physical assault and even death”.

The authorities expanded a crackdown on media in early 2009 by banning Azeri language service of the Radio Liberty, Voice of America and BBC radios in local frequencies. These radio outlets were the only stations offering a range of political views, dissenting voices and alternative information to the Azerbaijan society. At present, Eynulla Fatullayev and Ganimat Zahid, chief editors of country’s two prominent opposition papers are kept behind the bars on politically-motivated charges. The arrest of Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizade, two well-known youth activists and bloggers, has further limited the space for free expression. Their jailing sent a chilling message to those who use social media and are critical of the government. [Mili and Hajizade are on the shortlist for Index's on Censorship's Freedom of Expression Awards 2010]

The government’s targeting of critics and its failure to solve the murder of Elmar Huseynov shows how far the country is from being a democracy with a working independent judiciary and real political will. At stake is not only the declining media freedom, but also the lives of Azerbaijan’s determined journalists.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Big libel gig

Last night’s Big Libel Gig was really quite special. We’ll be posting videos of interviews with some of the artists involved soon, and the Little Atoms radio show recorded a special show on the night. In the meantime, here are Robert Sharp of English PEN’s excellent photographs.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Libel week round up

The Libel Reform Campaign’s Libel Week culminates with the Big Libel Gig this Sunday, featuring Dara O’Briain, Robin Ince, Ed Byrne, Shappi Khorsandi, Tim Minchin and many more. We’ll be tweeting at #libelreform, and the Little Atoms radio show will be interviewing performers backstage for a special podcast, available next week.

On Thursday night, the campaign hosted “What You Don’t Get To See” at the Free Word Centre, an event highlighting the difficulties documentary filmmakers face because of England’s libel laws.

Among the speakers was investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, who ran a campaign against quackery in the 1980’s and 90s.
Campbell began investigating alternative health during the early day’s of Aids when, as he put it stories “filled my in-tray and broke my heart.” He investigated doctors selling unscientific remedy’s for the Big three” cancer, aids, leaukemia” Campbell’s investigations resulted in four doctors being struck off for life — two of whom were treating HIV-positive patients with Ayurvedic remedies. He repeatedly faced libel actions — including one against him personally
On Wednesday evening, Mr Juctice Eady spoke on free speech and the European Convention on Human Rights at the launch of City University’s Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism. Eady, often cast as the pantomime villain of defamation, said he felt the biggest problem with English free speech cases is the massive cost, which he felt was partly down to a culture of bravado and machismo among libel lawyers. Eady also said he was sympathetic to the idea of libel tribunals, which would save time and money.

You can read Justice Eady’s speech here

Meanwhile, this week Russian businessman Boris Berezovsky this week won a case against Russian channel RTR Planeta, which had implicated him in the death of Alexander Litvinenko. The case threw up a question: was this libel tourism? Berezovksy cleary has interests in the UK, but the broadcast was in Russian; and while available in the UK, it was not intended for this market.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Facebook threatens Daily Mail with libel action

One of the problems of long-haul flights is that your critical faculties are so compromised by being confined in a metal cylinder for several hours with no leg-room and too much free gin that you’ll watch rubbish movies and read almost anything that gets put in front of you, even stuff you’d never normally touch.

So it was that yesterday morning found me incandescent with rage at a feature about the evils of Facebook in the Daily Mail, with the superbly seedy headline “I posed as a 14-year-old girl on Facebook. What followed will sicken you”.

Written by former police detective Mark Williams-Thomas, the article described how he had created a profile of a 14 year old girl on Facebook, logged on and “within 90 seconds, a middle-aged man wanted to perform a sex act in front of me”, going on to detail the many evils of social network sites and calling for more control and supervision online.

This is all standard fare for the tabloid press seeking sensationalist stories about the evils of the internet, social networking and anything from the modern age, but it seemed odd that Facebook should be the venue for this sort of stuff: it isn’t really a chat-based service, a new user takes a long time to get many “friends”, and the site has restrictions in place that stop users over the age of 18 chatting to the under-18s.

And so it turned out to be. It has emerged that Williams-Thomas’s research was not done on Facebook but another, as yet unspecified, service and that the Mail got it wrong even though he spotted the error in their sub-editing and asked them to change it.

Facebook is furious and is threatening to sue, on the not unreasonable grounds that the story will have been read by large numbers of parents of potential users — who will neither see nor note any correction — and that the Mail has damaged their reputation.

It’s similar to the situation with the Independent on Sunday, which printed an article by sex-blogger Zoe Margolis with the headline “I was a hooker who became an agony aunt”, apparently confusing her with Belle de Jour. Margolis is also threatening to sue.

Anyone who tries to argue for the superiority of mainstream media over the anarchy of the blogosphere and the growth of citizen journalism and user-generated content online will find their cause seriously undermined by this sort of sloppy reporting, which smacks of wish-fulfilment on the part of desperate editors and an unwillingness to check the facts in case they get in the way of a good story.

Being called to account for serious errors is one of the things you sign up for when you become a journalist, and it distinguishes those with aspirations to be taken seriously from the rest: freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility for the consquences of what you say in public.

As a long-time supporter of reform for UK libel laws (sign the petition here: www.libelreform.org) it is painful to see Facebook turn to the law, but this is more of a reflection on the poor state of press regulation in the UK, where the company clearly feels that the UK Press Complaints Commission will be unable to give them satisfaction over such a serious lapse.

And perhaps it will make sub-editors and headline writers a little more careful in future when they write stories that attack the online world.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Google and Stephen Fry attack digital bill

ISPs, Google, Facebook, eBay, Yahoo and the Open Rights Group sign letter saying bill threatens free speech

In a letter published in the Financial Times today, digital rights campaigners and consumer and industry groups argue a key amendment in the Digital Economy bill is “poor law making” that will encourage site blocking and damage free expression.
Dear Sirs,
We regret that the House of Lords last week adopted amendment 120A to the Digital Economy Bill. This amendment not only significantly changes the injunctions procedure in the UK but will lead to an increase in Internet service providers blocking websites accused of illegally hosting copyrighted material without cases even reaching a judge. The amendment seeks to address the legitimate concerns of rights-holders but would have unintended consequences which far outweigh any benefits it could bring.
Endorsing a policy that would encourage the blocking of websites by UK broadband providers or other Internet companies is a very serious step for the UK to take. There are myriad legal, technical and practical issues to reconcile before this can be considered a proportionate and necessary public policy option.  In some cases, these may never be reconciled. These issues have not even been considered in this case.
The Lords have been thoughtful in their consideration of the Bill to date.  It is therefore bitterly disappointing that the House has allowed an amendment with obvious shortcomings to proceed without challenging its proponents to consider and address the full consequences.  Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the Internet in the UK and elsewhere, threatening freedom of speech and the open Internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended. To rush through such a controversial proposal at the tail end of a Parliament, without any kind of consultation with consumers or industry, is very poor law making.
We are particularly concerned that a measure of this kind as a general purpose policy could have an adverse impact on the reputation of the UK as a place to do online business and conflict with the broader objectives of Digital Britain.  This debate has created a tension between specific interest groups and the bigger prize of promoting a policy framework that supports our digital economy and appropriately balances rights and responsibilities.  All parties should take steps to safeguard this prize and place it at the heart of public policy in this area.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Alexander, CEO, Orange UK
Richard Allan, Director of Policy EU, Facebook
Neil Berkett, Chief Executive, Virgin Media
Matt Brittin, Managing Director, Google UK and Ireland
Charles Dunstone, Chairman, Talk Talk Group
Stephen Fry
Jessica Hendrie-Liaño, Chair, Internet Services Providers Association (ISPA)
Jill Johnstone, International Director, Consumer Focus
Jim Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group
Mark Lewis, Managing Director, eBay UK Ltd
Ian Livingston, Chief Executive, BT Group
Professor Sarah Oates, University of Glasgow
Dr Jenny Pickerill, University of Leicester
Mark Rabe, Managing Director, Yahoo! UK and Ireland
Dr Paul Reilly, University of Leicester
Jess Search, Founder, Shooting People independent film makers
Professor Ian Walden, Queen Mary, University of London
Tom Watson MP
http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Iceland and Al-Jazeera

Al-Jazeera’s Listening Post programme recently carried a feature on the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, featuring me and Julian Assange of Index on Censorship Award winner Julian Assange of Wikileaks.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Geert Wilders touches down

The controversial far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders arrived in the UK today to attend a screening of his anti-Islam film Fitna at the House of Lords. The 46-year-old leader of the Freedom Party was invited to London by the leader of the UK Independent Party (UKIP) Lord Pearson of Rannoch. The 17-minute film, which focuses on Islamic terrorism and depicts the Koran burning and provoked widespread anger around the world and demonstrations are expected in Westminster this afternoon.

Wilders was due to enter the country last February, but was detained on landing at Heathrow airport and ordered to return to Amsterdam by the then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who said his presence had the potential to “threaten community harmony”.

Wilders has since had this ban overturned and seen his popularity rise in the Netherlands. In last week’s local elections, the Freedom Party polled second in The Hague, one of the country’s largest cities and the seat of the Dutch government.

Wilders is currently on trial in the Netherlands for fomenting hatred and discrimination and if convicted could face two years in prison.

Oliver Kamm, leader writer for The Times, writing for Index on Censorship earlier this year argued that Wilders should not be charged for expressing his views and described the Dutch authorities’ decision to prosecute as a “monstrous abuse of power”.

Allowing ideas to die in place of their adherents is a mark of a civilised society. It is not hyperbole to say that in the defence of the unlikely figure of Geert Wilders lies also the defence of western civilization.

Wilders is holding a press conference with UKIP at 12:30.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png