4 days ago
The Spectator and Douglas Murray win defamation claim brought by Mohammed Hijab
The Spectator and Douglas Murray have today won a defamation claim brought by Mohammed Hegab, who 'lied on significant issues' in court and gave evidence that 'overall, is worthless'.
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.
