Latest news with #Spectator
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
The Spectator wins defamation claim brought by Muslim activist who criticised Hindus
TOI correspondent from London : The Spectator magazine and Douglas Murray have won a defamation case brought by a Muslim online influencer who stirred up trouble during the 2022 Leicester riots. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Mohammed Hijab, a YouTuber with 1.3 million followers, whose real name is Mohammed Hegab, claimed that an article in the Spectator about the riots, titled 'Leicester and the downside with diversity' and published in Sept 2022, defamed him. The author, Murray, wrote Hijab was a 'a street agitator' who 'cropped up in Leicester to whip up his followers'. He wrote: 'Among other things he (Hijab) told them that Hindus are ridiculous people, not least because of their belief in reincarnation.' Hijab sued for defamation claiming he lost thousands of pounds in fees as a result of the article. But in a judgment handed down on Tuesday in the high court, Justice Johnson found that what Murray wrote about Hijab is 'substantially true, and it is not materially inaccurate'. Hijab's claim was that his comments were not about Hindus but 'the Hindutva' in Leicester which, Hijab, claimed 'promotes conspiracy theories, including that Muslim men conspire to convert Hindu women to Islam'. Johnson wrote: 'When asked to name anyone in the world who subscribed to the Hindutva ideology but who was not Hindu [Hijab] was able to give only one name: Benjamin Netanyahu.' He also said Hijab 'lied on significant issues, with the consequence that his evidence, overall, is worthless'. Johnson pointed out a video of Hijab's speech in Leicester shows him, 'far more vividly than is conveyed by the words of the article, directly whipping up a large group of masked men and ridiculing Hinduism'.
Spectator
2 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Labour voters: Kyle's Savile comment was ‘inappropriate'
Back to the Online Safety Act which, since it came into force just over a week ago, has sparked outrage across the country as social media posts showing rioters fighting with police have been suppressed while those referring to sexual attacks have been automatically flagged as pornographic. As the Spectator's cover piece noted last week, footage from a protest outside the Britannia Hotel in Leeds, which showed police officers restraining and arresting a protestor, now can't be easily accessed in Britain. But while opposition leaders like Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage have slammed the legislation, Mr S has been rather intrigued to find out who exactly supports it. More in Common polling has revealed that, staggeringly, almost six in ten people support the Act. While seven in ten Labour voters back the legislation it transpires, rather curiously, that Reform UK voters are the most divided about it all. While a third of Farage-backers are against the legislation, one in two Reform voters are in favour of the law. Despite this, however, Reform UK supporters tend to be more concerned about political posts being restricted by social media platforms under the law – with 83 per cent of Farage-supporters flagging this is as a worry compared with seven in ten of the general population. The data drop comes after Farage's party vowed to repeal the legislation if Reform win the next general election – with both Nige and his DOGE lead, former chair Zia Yusuf, agreeing that an alternative way to guarantee child safety online is necessary. Yet despite admitting an alternative solution to the Act would be required, the Reform lot became the focus of attacks from Labour – with Science Secretary Peter Kyle suggesting that Farage was 'on the side of' sexual predators like, er, Jimmy Savile over his stance. Whether this was an appropriate comment to make has not divided voters across the political spectrum quite as much as the Online Safety Act itself. More in Common polling shows that more than six in ten Brits believe Kyle's remark – which were subsequently doubled down on by government ministers – was 'an inappropriate thing to say'. While those most outraged by the comparison were Reform UK voters (83 per cent) and Tory voters (71 per cent), more than half of Labour voters were left unimpressed by Kyle's words. Eight in ten Reform voters think Kyle should apologise – as do almost two-thirds of Tories and, um, around half of Labour supporters. Dear oh dear. It looks like Sir Keir Starmer's strategists may have to go back to the drawing board on this one…
Spectator
2 days ago
- Spectator
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.
Hamilton Spectator
6 days ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Top Hamilton headlines this week: She was married to an alleged serial abuser + ‘City that time forgot' was using outdated network security
T he weekend is here, but plenty happened in the Hamilton area this week. Don't miss these top stories from Spectator reporters. The midsummer holiday weekend means festivals, friends and fun. Check out Lucky Lion Night Market, Festival of Friends and more . Here's what's open and closed Civic Holiday Monday . The pleasant summer weather continues. Expect mostly sunny weather Saturday through Monday and daytime high temperatures in the mid to high 20s. Coun. Cameron Kroetsch offered an alternative take on the downtown arena revitalization last week, comparing the $280-million project to mineral extraction. When the arena is generating revenue, he said, 'some of that's got to go back to the community.' Comments labelled as 'troubling' by a supporter of the project. Taxpayers will foot the full $18.3-million bill for last year's devastating cyberattack because the City of Hamilton had not instituted the layers of IT system security required by its insurance policy. Bryan Hayward is accused of drugging and sexually assaulting women, recording the assaults and in some cases sharing those videos with others. His ex-wife shares her story and her gratitude for survivors. Golf is great. But being on the fairway isn't the most important thing in life, even if you're a PGA Tour pro. Here's why Mackenzie Hughes took a pass as the tour stopped near his North Carolina home. Hamilton police arrested a naked man on a Nikola Tesla Boulevard ramp Sunday afternoon after he allegedly assaulted someone and then stole a bicycle. Subscribe to our newsletters for the latest local content . Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Spectator
6 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Online Safety Act: are Labour or the Tories worse on free speech?
Is the Online Safety Act protecting children – or threatening free speech? Michael Simmons hosts John Power, who writes the Spectator's cover piece this week on how the Act has inadvertently created online censorship. Implemented and defended by the current Labour government, it is actually the result of legislation passed by the Conservatives in 2023 – which Labour did not support at the time, arguing it didn't go far enough. Michael and John joined by former Conservative MP Miriam Cates who defends the core aims and principles at the heart of the Act. They debate the principles of Big Tech, the risks of government overreach and whether freedom of expression is under threat. Produced by Megan McElroy and Patrick Gibbons.
