This is a guest post by Khalid Richards
****
Hello Spittoonland.
I am writing to let you know that when I heard that the Quilliam Foundation threatened Craig Murray with libel action, I was disappointed.
This is Murray’s account of a hilarious phonecall conversation he had with a QF person by the name of Ed Jagger.
The question we would like to put to Quilliam Foundation has to be this: If it considers itself to be an anti-Islamist organisation which is willing to take libel action against its detractors for suggesting that it “has never filed a set of accounts”, why didn’t it go after these guys for posting this?
UPDATE: This post has been edited to remove inaccuracies.
28 Comments
I would imagine that they are not suing the ‘Traditional Islamism’ website because it is virtually impossible to sue an anonymous blog hosted by the California-based ‘wordpress’ company.
This should be obvious to anyone with even the most elementary knowledge of libel law.
Mr Wise Guy
Are you telling me that an anti-Islamist thinktank like QF, which has received millions in government funding, cannot identify the Islamists running the ‘Traditional Islamism’ site?
So do you think that QF should spent its time chasing every anonymous Islamist blog that attacks it in order to “identify the Islamists” running them? Or would you prefer that they fire off a quick lawyer’s letter to easily identifiable targets such as Craig Murray and then move on to more worthwhile matters?
I think I would prefer the former – particularly if, as you say, QF are recieiving “millions in government funding” (a figure which is, I think, considerably in excess of the figure which I have previously seen mentioned in The Times).
Well, given part of its remit is to chase anonymous Islamists, I’m not quite sure you why would prefer the former.
I would prefer a so-called anti-Islamist organisation which purportedly stands for liberal values *not* to use libel laws and “lawfare” at all. Are there any more people QF have sued or are about to sue?
This really does undercut QF’s liberal pretensions, doesn’t it?
I am sorry, but Craig Murray is a crank with a considerable soft spot for Islamism and a strong inclination to seek to make trouble for people opposed to Islamism.
Can I just point out that the link in the above-the-line article to the d-squareddigest website page is to a now non-existent page; and that the traditional-islam website is now a protected website that one requires a user name and password to access.
The allegation in question is not a new one, and has impeccable Hizb ut-Tahrir credentials. It surfaced on this very blog on the 5th of this month, passed on by the HT drone, Abdul Rehman, here:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3449#comment-13687
Murray has a long track-record of acting as a conduit for Islamist smears, lies and propaganda and has a considerable soft-spot for HT. His kind words for them and other Islamists stretching back to his time as a somewhat erratic senior diplomat in Central Asia.
Plausibly then a reason why QF are going after Craig Murray, as opposed to the assorted goons and nut-cases that litter the interweb with insane anti-QF rubbish, is that Craig Murray (for reasons that continue to escape me) continues to enjoy at least some reputation for serious comment. A shot across the bows of someone who seems to enjoy seeking to legitimise Islamists might not be such a bad thing.
Is this the same Murray that married a stripper he met in a Tashkent strip-joint. A self confessed hypersexual perv.
It is a fallousy that there are not bigger and more widley read websites that support Islamism for QF to go for
MPACK UK has been far more libelous towards QF as has IEngage but QF has decided not to go for them.
These websites are not run by people that have pseudonyms and it is very easy to identify who is in charge of these orgs.
Could the reasons for not going after these two have anything to do with the fact that Carter Ruck would be involved
And they pose much stiffer opposition than Murray? Or the fact that Bungles runs one of them?
Is QF afraid of them? Surely going after them would be much better for the cause?
Also, as a tax payer that is funding QF, I find it disgracefull that Ed and Maj have asked for payment into their personal accounts!!
If they win any monies, can we the tax payers have some of our money bac?
I, for one, made no such comment.
I have given the reasons I think they have chosen to threaten Murray with a writ, above.
They don’t shill for Islamists whilst posing as a balanced voice of reason – unlike Murray, it may be contended, does.
I was unaware they were taking action as individuals. If they are, then where else would you expect the money to be paid?
You know that they will be using public monies for their case? Well, do you?
Wow Abu – that was fast man !!!!
“I for one made no such comment”
Please tell me who made the allegation that u did? Seeing as u approve libel action against blogers,If u like, I will sue them on your be
I was referring to the first post by Mr Wise Guy.
“They don’t shill for Islamists whilst posing as (basically good guys)”
What about Islamophobia watch? They have libeled QF much more
As far as action as individuals is concerned – Murray has posted the letter that has been sent to him by QF legal representation.
According to that letter, the action is for libel towards an entity that is called Quilliam Foundation.
In case you do not know, this is limited by guarantee, not for profit organisation.
Therefore it has been libeled in this instance and not the Directors. Therefore, only it should receive any payout.
Murray’s letter seems to ask for payment to Directors.
Perhaps you could answer the question re public monies? Do you know that this will not be the case.
Bearing in mind that according to all information, bearing in mind that core capacity funding for QF seems to be coming from government.
(Including the covert finances from Egypt – according to the bragging of some)
If you know more about this (as u seem to be quite agitated by my comments) please do enlighten us.
Although, unless u are Ed or Maj, I fail to see how you would?
I’m sorry, Guardian Camel, I don’t respond to trolls who pass off malicious gossip.
For all other points, I refer you to my third post. A post you appear keen to ignore.
After spending some time trying to decipher what exactly you meant in this paragraph, I came to the conclusion that you failed to grasp the meaning of the phrase “for one” in the sentence “I, for one, made no such comment”. It means, smart arse, that I was not involved in the straw man argument you were erecting.
If you cannot be bothered to write comprehensible English, my advice would be to lose the smug self-satisfaction you evidently feel about yourself when you are trying to be clever. It just makes you look an even bigger fool (if this is actually possible).
This article originally included the suggestion that the directors of QF had asked for any money from a libel action against Craig Murray to be paid to them, not QF. This was removed because it is untrue. Please do not repeat potentially libellous comments on this blog.
Thank you
Yossarian
Guardian Camel – you have remarkable insight into what happens at QF. Do you work there? If not how do you know who has or hasn’t been threatened with libel?
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:PQG9fP4drhoJ:www.networkedblogs.com/blog/d_squared_digest/+d-squared+quilliam&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Yoss,
Did you edit the content of this blog because your are afraid QF might try to sue this blog as well for inaccuracies? Interesting…
Anyway, for those interested, QF apparently sent another legal letter to Craig Murray. Supposedly, ‘they now acknowledge that they only filed their accounts six days after I [Craig Murray] blogged that they had not filed them.’ See: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/11/murray_to_quill.html
I don’t know if Craig Murray is right – he hasn’t uploaded this lawyer’s letter, though he did with the first. But if he is correct, and I don’t know how QF allocates its private and public finances, then I really hope that public money (my hard earned money) was not used for paying legal fees for something they then back down on because they realised that perhaps, they may not have a case after all. And legal costs are pretty expensive.
Also, can someone please enlighten me as to how Craig Murray’s initial blog was defamatory?
Here is another interesting take on the QF v Craig Murray situation from Heresy Corner blog:
http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/11/quilliam-v-craig-murray-another.html
I wonder if anyone from HT might care to comment on the remarkable fact that it was HT cadres who were circulating this story nearly three weeks ago – and on the equally remarkable fact that, once again, Craig Murray appears to be acting as a conduit for HT originated attacks on individuals with whom HT have a beef?
@Seerat
“But if he is correct, and I don’t know how QF allocates its private and public finances, then I really hope that public money (my hard earned money) was not used for paying legal fees for something they then back down on because they realised that perhaps, they may not have a case after all. And legal costs are pretty expensive.”
I agree. I really hope they are paying out of their own pocket and not taking it out of the QF pot.
Do you think Shikwa (Majed) could come on here to confirm that he’s using his own money?
@Abu Faris
Or it could be that nobody likes QF and Craig Murray dislikes them for his own reasons…(reasons which many of us share)
I don’t think Mr Murray is a secret HT member/sympathiser!
LOL
Tobias – I heard you’ve tried to become a facebook friend of eveyone who works at QF? Whats all that about you joker!
Why do HT people still behave like retards!
I at no point suggested that Murray was an HT member, Tobias. I suggested that this would not be the first time he has passed on stories that can be traced back to HT and other Islamist sources.
See the difference?
Do you deny that exactly the same story was being passed around by identified HT members (here on this site and elsewhere) some weeks ago?
Do try to read what others have written before you start sneering, Tobias. You may find it saves you making a complete dick of yourself in future.
@zaloom
I wanted to know who these people were and I found out. Ed removed me when I posted on his wall. Shame.
Surprising how much they reveal about themselves online.
You would think the the spooks at QF would be careful, but they’re not!
I’m not HT, I’m not even Muslim. I grew up Anglican, then went my own way. I consider myself agnostic. Hope that clears it up for you.
@Abu Faris
“Do you deny that exactly the same story was being passed around by identified HT members (here on this site and elsewhere) some weeks ago?
Do try to read what others have written before you start sneering, Tobias. You may find it saves you making a complete dick of yourself in future.”
– i don’t keep track of loony HT or Spittoon. So i wouldn’t really know.
Sneering? Did I sneer? Saving myself from being a dick?
You talking to me, Ed, Shikwa or Douglas Murray?
BTW, there’s no need for the horrid language faris.
Ah, a troll.
How tedious.
It is simply delightful to see that you admit that you do not have a clue of that of which you write. Your honesty is refreshing.
A spot of abuse… but then you shoot yourself straight between the eyes with the mock outrage of :
That’s Abu Faris, troll; and I think you got off lightly, as it happens.
So your an Anglican retard!
Much ado about nothing?
Quilliam supposedly file their accounts late. Murray all over it like bad rash. QF get offended to the point that they feel to call in legal.
Result? A story which was barely on anyone’r radar, may mow get some national column inches. I reckon QF may have shot themselves in the foot here.
Hassan, I think you’re right there. Much as I admire most of what QF do, threatening to sue bloggers is not cool and is very likely to backfire, as these threats to Murray appear to have.