The Spectator and Douglas Murray win defamation claim brought by Mohammed Hijab
The judge rejected Hegab's claim because the videos he publishes are 'at least as reputationally damaging to him as the article'
Hegab, a YouTuber who posts under the name Mohammed Hijab, claimed that an article about the Leicester riots published in September 2022 had caused serious harm to his reputation and loss of earnings as a result. Hegab travelled to Leicester in September 2022 after disturbances between local Muslims and Hindus there had begun, and gave a speech to a group of Muslim men, the majority of them in balaclavas, masks, hoods or caps, in which he said 'if they believe in reincarnation, yeah… what a humiliation and pathetic thing for them to be reincarnated into some pathetic weak cowardly people like that'. Hegab said this comment was referring to Hindutva – a Hindu nationalist group – and not Hindus. But it was 'substantially true' to say that he was referring to Hindus, the judge found: 'It was them that he was ridiculing.'
The earnings Hegab claimed to have lost included a £3,500-a-month deal to be a brand ambassador for the charity One Ummah, a £1,500-a-month advertising contract with supplements company Nature's Blends and £30,000 for a Ramadan fundraising campaign with the charity Salam.
But messages that he relied on for these claims 'have the appearance of being contrived for the purpose of these proceedings,' the judge said. They addressed Hegab formally, despite coming from people who knew him well; they blamed the article; and they 'provided material that would be necessary to support a claim for financial losses…when one might not generally expect such detail.' They also arrived at 'roughly the same time, which was several weeks after the article, but very shortly before a letter of claim was sent'.
The judge found that 'as a witness [Hegab] was combative and constantly argumentative…arguing his case rather than giving straightforward responses'. He made an 'untenable…denial of vigilantism' over his actions in Leicester. He made claims that were 'not credible' when he said he was unaware of having given a speech in front of a van displaying images of the Holocaust on another occasion in Golders Green. He also 'described the Jewish people he encountered in Golders Green as 'Zionists' without any objective basis'.
The judge rejected Hegab's claim because the videos he publishes are 'at least as reputationally damaging to him as the article' and so 'it cannot be inferred that the article caused, or would be likely to cause, additional serious reputational harm'.
By Max Jeffery
Mohammed Hijab was a picture of arrogance in Courtroom 73 at the Royal Courts of Justice. Over the three days he gave evidence last month, Hijab – whose real name is Mohammed Hegab – smirked, laughed and slouched in his chair. He hectored The Spectator's legal counsel, Greg Callus. At the end of his second day in the witness box, Hijab leant over the side and shouted: 'You are good! You are not bad! You're a good lawyer! However, even for someone like yourself, with as much intelligence and as much shrewdness and good questioning…Even for someone like yourself you are finding this difficult… It's an unsalvageable case, Greg! It really is!'
Hijab was sure he was going to win, but today he has lost.
Mr Justice Johnson dismissed Hijab's defamation claim entirely. What Douglas Murray wrote in The Spectator on 24 September 2022, Johnson has now confirmed to be 'substantially true': Mohammed Hijab is a street agitator who whipped up his followers in Leicester during the unrest there between Muslims and Hindus three years ago. He mocked Hindus, and claimed that they must live in fear because they have been reincarnated as 'pathetic, weak, cowardly people'.
This case was about more than just what happened in Leicester. Hijab sought to show that The Spectator had published something untrue. He failed. But he also wanted to intimidate Douglas and the magazine. He sought damages of tens of thousands of pounds, and tried to recuperate his legal costs of hundreds of thousands of pounds. He attempted to use Britain's legal system to silence journalists, and to paint himself as an upstanding citizen turned victim.
This has backfired. Mr Justice Johnson is clear: Hijab's evidence was 'worthless', and the man is a liar. Phrases such as 'not credible', 'not consistent', 'untenable' and 'confected' fill today's judgment. Mr Justice Johnson says that Hijab lied in court on several occasions, and was 'combative and constantly argumentative'. Hijab appeared to have invented contracts after Douglas's article was published, in order to claim damages for their bogus cancellation. Now he has lost, Hijab himself is on the hook for a lot of money.
You can read the judgment for yourself here. For a long time, Mohammed Hijab has bullied the British press, threatening publications and outlets who cross him with crushing lawsuits. The Spectator, rightly, did not bow to his pressure.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
8 hours ago
- Spectator
My victory over Mohammed Hijab
One of the occupational hazards of being a journalist is being hounded by litigants. Indeed, one of the reasons why much of the media finds it easier to report fluff than to write about difficult issues is that the latter can be costly in terms of money, as well as time. Three years ago I wrote a column in this magazine about some of the downsides of diversity. At the time there had just been serious disturbances in Leicester between local Hindus and Muslims. One of the people who decided to throw himself into the middle of that trouble and to try to make things worse was an online pugilist known as Mohammed Hijab. Hijab had already been filmed intimidating Jews in Golders Green and whipping up a crowd of masked men outside the Israeli embassy in London. In Leicester he chose to make a derogatory speech about Hindus to a crowd of men and then picture himself leading a 'Muslim patrol' in the city. After I pointed this out, Hijab tried to sue me and The Spectator. I retained the excellent Mark Lewis as my lawyer and for years, along with the magazine's brilliant legal team RPC, we watched Hijab perform every known legal and rhetorical contortion. Hijab's lawyers repeatedly dragged out their case, avoided every opportunity to drop it and insisted not only that what I had written was untrue, but that Hijab had suffered serious emotional and mental distress, as well as financial loss, as a result. Hijab seemed to think that he could use the courts not just to pursue me but to debate me. Last month the case was heard in London before Mr Justice Johnson. Many of Hijab's witnesses failed to show up, claiming ill health or having appeared to have skipped the country. Hijab himself spent several days in the witness box. This week the judge delivered his verdict. Mr Justice Johnson found that what I had said in my article was accurate, that Hijab had hurt his own reputation more through his actions and social media posts than I could ever have done with my article, and that the number of lies Hijab told in court were so numerous that his 'evidence overall is worthless'. The judgment also noted that as well as being 'combative and constantly argumentative' when cross-examined by my barrister and The Spectator's barrister, Hijab also demonstrated a 'palpable personal animosity' towards your columnist. The judgment found that Hijab lied about events in Golders Green – which he refused to accept was a Jewish area. It found that he had lied about his demagogic and dangerous actions outside the Israeli embassy in London, that he had lied about events in Leicester, and that he had lied about – and indeed appeared to have concocted – his claim of lost earnings. These lost earnings were alleged to have come from three Muslim organisations, including a supplements company called Nature's Blends. All claimed to have been big readers of my Spectator column, as indeed, Hijab alleged – causing him yet more hurt – was a receptionist at his local gym. Witnesses to his alleged financial loss failed to attend court. Another – Mr Wasway from Nature's Blends – had to try to explain his recent conviction and time spent in prison for making false court claims after staging car accidents. Not many law case reports make good reading in their own right, but this one does. No doubt Hijab will bluster that the findings are unfair and anti-Islamic – just as he tried to claim in court that Tommy Robinson, Benjamin Netanyahu and myself are three examples of non-Hindu Hindu extremists. But the judge in the case said far more against Hijab than I ever did. In court Hijab boasted of having sued other publications. He seemed proud of trying to bully the press, as well as the courts. But time and again he could not stop himself from lying. He claimed that his demagogic street speeches were attempts to publicly debate 'theology' and 'eschatology'. The judge found they were no such thing. Hijab had gone to Jewish areas on the Sabbath and a Hindu area during a volatile moment to engage in a type of vigilantism. As the judge said, Hijab 'was deliberately acting irresponsibly, raising the temperature of a volatile and potentially dangerous situation with provocative and inflammatory language'. The judge found his denials of vigilantism to be 'self-defeating' and 'untenable'. In summary, the judge found that 'the claimant is a street agitator who has whipped up a mob on London's streets, addressed an anti-Israel protest in inflammatory terms, and exacerbated frayed tensions (which had already spilled over into public disorder) between Muslim and Hindu communities in Leicester by whipping up his Muslim followers including by ridiculing Hindus for their belief in reincarnation and describing Hindus as pathetic, weak and cowardly in comparison to whom he would rather be an animal'. The judge ruled that what I wrote three years ago was true and Hijab was a liar. What to conclude about all this? Only that the press in this country often has to put up with Hijab-like figures. Few readers will be aware of the fact that one of the perils of an otherwise wonderful profession is litigious individuals attempting to silence the press from saying things about them that are true. Indeed I know journalists who in recent years have had to spend more time dealing with their lawyers than dealing with their editors. It is inevitable that over time many editors, publications and journalists will decide to take an easier route. Hijab imagined he could use the court system to intimidate me and this magazine. He resolutely and comprehensively failed. It turned out that a London courtroom and a British judge are not X, YouTube or some other online echo-chamber. The court is a place where facts are able to come out and where lies can come out too. I am very proud that The Spectator stood up against this thug and bully, and that a judge has exposed him for everyone to see.
South Wales Guardian
11 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Police chief calls for urgent guidance for forces after cover-up accusations
Warwickshire police and crime commissioner Philip Seccombe is calling for fresh national guidance to be issued after the charging of two men – reported to be Afghan asylum seekers – prompted accusations that the force withheld information about their immigration status. The pair are accused of raping of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton. Mr Seccombe said: 'Like all forces, Warwickshire Police finds itself in a difficult position of trying to carefully balance the legal safeguards which protect the integrity of the judicial process, while maintaining public order and simultaneously ensuring that public confidence is maintained through transparency and honesty. 'Currently police forces are in an invidious position when deciding what can and should be disclosed in sensitive cases, given that the national guidance is silent on both the ethnicity and immigration status of suspects. 'It is very easy to criticise and suggest that the balance of disclosure hasn't been correct, but it is much harder to take these decisions on the ground.' On Wednesday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said police should reveal more information about suspects, and that guidance to police was already being looked at. But she added it was an 'operational decision' for forces and the Crown Prosecution Service over what information to release. She said: 'However, we do think that the guidance needs to change, the College of Policing is already looking at this, and Home Office officials are working with the College of Policing.' The Nuneaton case has led to fresh pressure on police over the information they make public. The Southport atrocity committed by Axel Rudakubana in July last year was marked by a focus on the suspect's ethnicity and immigration status, with false rumours spreading online that he was a Muslim asylum seeker, fuelling riots after the stabbings. Mr Seccombe added: 'It is imperative that police forces have revised guidance as soon as possible, so everyone has the clarity needed on what information will be released, when it will be released and by whom, for any incidents going forward.'
The Independent
12 hours ago
- The Independent
Purple pavement markings part of Mind the Grab campaign to tackle phone theft
Purple lines with the warning 'Mind the Grab' have been marked on London's busy Oxford Street to help tackle phone theft. The campaign, which is supported by the Metropolitan Police, Westminster Council and Crimestoppers, features the markings on the pavement at the central London location that is usually packed with shoppers, commuters and tourists. Theft hotspots in Westminster last year saw a mobile being stolen every 15 minutes and 77% of Britons view phone snatching as a significant problem in the UK, rising to 88% in large cities such as London, according to research commissioned by tech retailer Currys. The wording on the purple markings, which is inspired by London Underground's 'Mind the Gap' catchphrase, aims to remind pedestrians to step back from the kerb, keep their phone hidden and reduce their risk of snatch and grab theft. The Metropolitan Police said the campaign is part of its strategy to tackle phone theft. Superintendent Natasha Evans, the Met's local policing lead for Westminster, said: 'Officers are relentlessly pursuing criminal gangs intent on committing robbery and phone theft. 'We have increased patrols in hotspot areas to identify and deter perpetrators – and robbery has reduced by 20% in the West End since April. 'We are putting extra officers into central London to help drive forward our focus on reducing crime and bringing offenders to justice. 'We're also working closely with businesses in the area and support the campaign by Currys to encourage people to be aware of their surroundings to reduce the risk of becoming a victim.' The campaign is run by Currys and the University of London's Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research (ICPR), in an effort to raise awareness and cut down on the numbers of high street phone thefts. Aicha Less, deputy leader and cabinet member for children and public protection of Westminster City Council, said the campaign aims to raise awareness about phone thefts and promote simple measures to stay safe in public spaces, such as keeping valuables out of sight and planning routes home in advance. It is part of 'identifying the key crime and disorder issues facing our city and making the West End a safer place for visitors, residents and businesses,' she said. Ed Connolly, Currys chief commercial officer, said: 'Phone theft isn't just about losing a device, it's frightening, invasive, and cuts people off from their loved ones, their money and their daily lives. 'Enough is enough. It's time to draw the line on phone theft – that's why we've launched the Mind the Grab campaign – a bold pavement marking we believe can make a real difference by encouraging people to step back from the kerb.' Kate Johnston, director of business and fundraising at the independent UK charity Crimestoppers, said: 'Mobile phone theft is not just a statistic, it's a crime that leaves people feeling vulnerable and shaken.' She described the campaign as an 'innovative approach' which uses clear visual cues, and urged pedestrians to be vigilant. She said: 'Prevention is only part of the solution.
