Postcard from The Staterooms: ********** Edition

Dear Reader,

While the publication of Lord Neuberger’s report gave us an insight into current judicial thinking on the use of injunctions and ‘superinjunctions’ – and prompted this (lawful) tweet…. from @DavidJonesMP : “Unimpressed by sight of Ld Chief Justice & Master of Rolls sitting under banner “Judiciary of England & Wales”. Bit like Match of the Day.” – and inspired Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, to say that the use of modern technology was out of control – and it is certainly, for the moment, out of his control as far as overseas jurisdictions are concerned… the show on twitter goes on….

The latest twist in the tale from lawyers representing the footballer we cannot name in England & Wales  (but who appears now to be known urbi et orbi despite the best endeavours of judges ruling contra mundum etc ) is.. CTB -v- Twitter, Inc. and Persons Unknown (Case No. HQ11XO1814) – well covered by the Charles Russell CRITique blog. See also: Footballer CTB is suing Twitter

I am, because I read a lot of tweets, aware of another twist in the tale… this time from Scotland. But… I can’t tell you what it is about. (Although the BBC is happy that you should know about these events)

And you will find this post by @loveandgarbage of value in terms of protecting a position in Scotland? : Don’t say I didn’t tell you so – superinjunctions, anonymised injunctions and Scotland

Twitter and WikiLeaks have made a mockery of the courts

One of the best analyses I have seen was in The Observer this morning “A showdown between the law and common sense is brewing as a footballer takes legal action over Twitter’s injunction breach”

Most people know – or should by now – that in the absence of any ‘privacy law’,  the judges have to balance the rights of privacy and freedom of speech in The European Convention, enshrined in our law by The Human Rights Act.

Some may well argue that the private sex lives of footballers and others is ‘private’.  Others argue that these celebrities make a great deal of money through sponsorship, they are role models and if their hobbies or extra-curricular activities are inconsistent with the image they ‘sell’, the press should report on such matters.  Others have argued that it should not just be left to the judges to balance these interests of privacy and freedom of speech.  A debate in parliament, they say, is to be held soon – not before time.  I have a feeling that whether you mock the ‘apparent right of tweeters to know everything’ or not, that injunctions may well not feature as a practical remedy in future.  The cat is out of the bag – and The Spycatcher affair of many years ago is a lesson that would be well worth learning.

Meanwhile… contempt proceedings may be considered by the Attorney-General if this report in The Mail on Sunday is accurateone assumes that it is.  Robert Verkaik writes: “TV star is first to face jail over tweets after England footballer claims they breach injunction: Judge reports top journalist to Attorney-General.”

The other saga of the week… among many… must be The Ken Clarke Affair.  I don’t propose to cover this again, but I would like to draw your attention to a very good, considered, piece by Suzanne Moore in The Guardian…

Like many women, I’ve been raped, but I still agree with Ken Clarke

Rape is not a party-political issue and I am disgusted that it has been treated that way this week

I’ll be back later with another ‘postcard’ if I have time later.

Best, as always

Charon

PS…. and I really enjoyed this…. Lord Neuberger – Superinjunctions and other orders from Obiter J 



13 thoughts on “Postcard from The Staterooms: ********** Edition

  1. Indeed. But I am saying that I am a single lone voice of criticism. And have been treated as a dangerous force against the virtuous project of feminism.

    Just one single person. And The Guardian pre-moderated all the comments on the cif article, so basically the discussion was ‘censored’ (I don’t mean literally I know it is not state censorship, but severely curtailed).

    It is a taboo subject challenging ‘victim culture’.

  2. Quiet Riot Girl – well…. people may comment on both Suzanne’s piece and your response here… should they wish to.

    Unfortunately – twitter etc being what it is… many will read… few comment these days! (Compared to the old days – especially on complex legal issues)

  3. Quiet Riot Girl, you must have leapt on and off the Guardian article fairly quickly, as there were over a hundred comments when I read it a couple of days ago. A few minutes ago there were 200 and over a hundred recommendations for your comment.

    I appreciated some parts of Suzanne Moore’s article, but not all (people are able to do this sort of thinking, you know). I don’t particularly like the personal claim to victim status, but this is one aspect, and it is the aspect you are also claiming as the ‘single lone voice of criticism’, which a rapid scan of the comments shows is untrue, as does the number of recommendations your comment received.

    The raped or sexually assaulted take such acts personally, so I was not surprised to find the personal claim present. I am surprised that your perceived lack of attention or even conspiratorial editing has lead you to feel personally attacked and to produce an line by line repetitive analysis.

    A considered debate about victimhood would have been most welcome and I look forward to it.

  4. Hi Jac

    Yes I kind of meant single blogger. I should have been clearer. You make valid points all taken on board!

    But cif articles about feminist issues – especially Suzanne’s, usually attract about 5-600 comments. This one was so heavily moderated – comments were queued up and all published at once- that a proper discussion was impossible.
    My estimate is that about 400 comments did not pass moderation. Obv I could be wrong we shall never know.

    I have written about victim culture in feminism before e.g. here:

    http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/further-adventures-in-rape-culture/

    If I come across as having a ‘victim’ complex I really do not want to do that and will consider how I put things. But it is probably partly because there is a context here to my challenges of feminist dogma that I haven’t fully explained. It is all on my blog but I don’t expect people to be that interested! It’s a bit esoteric. I am more bothered about getting some of my points across.

    So thanks Charon for letting me post here!

  5. Thank you, Quiet Riot Girl. I shall read your work and comment there.

    Also, thank you Mr Charon, Sir, for this space.

  6. i never mind reading suzanne moore because sometimes i like what she writes and sometimes i really hate it. i don’t feel she was playing a victim card or claiming special status – just reinforcing the truth that lots of women get raped. nor did she imply that women who haven’t been raped don’t get to have a view.

    and qrg repeats some of the tired old tropes about feminism and radfems in particular … man-hating, victim-mentality, ‘all men are rapists’, demanding the world be skewed to their advantage etc. they aren’t the sort of criticisms most radfems find difficult to dispel and if anyone takes a moment to read some of the very eloquent and well-argued radfem voices online i believe they will see that pretty rapidly. as someone prone to criticism of radical feminism, qrg can hardly claim to be an endangered species – would that were the case.

    i’d happily see the departure of ken clarke but that’s largely on the tribalistic point-scoring level for which suzanne moore criticises ed milliband – it’s not that she’s stupid or naive enough to think that’s not what he’s bound to do, so it’s a bit crap to have a go at him for it. it annoys me more he hasn’t done it very effectively. moore’s point that john redwood has much loonier views than clarke is hardly rocket science. i mean, just look at the freak. i’m guessing dominic raab has similarly idiotic ideas, but again that’s not a surprise from a man who believes feminism is ruining the world. just that clarke is less of a tosser on this is hardly an endorsement. and it would be quite a shock if either of those two were in the running to be justice minister of anywhere outside of planet fascistloon.

  7. Pingback: CTB v. Twitter, Inc. and Unknown Persons: Trying to Flog a Dead Horse « THE TRIAL WARRIOR BLOG

  8. Thanks simplywondered it is nice to know you’d like me to be an endangered species. Sorry but I am here to stay.

    Also I have read plenty of radfem crap online and it is all exactly how I characterise it.

    Yes women get raped and men don’t because the legal definition of rape is highly gendered- it involves a penis penetrating an orafice.

    So you can always say ‘men rape women’ it is a kind of tautology.

    But glad you think my arguments are worth countering.

  9. qrg – i certainly think your arguments are worth countering. i read them and i disagree with them.

    it’s a shame you descend to a rather unthinking blanket dismissal in saying:

    ‘Also I have read plenty of radfem crap online and it is all exactly how I characterise it. ‘

    it makes you sound to me like an obsessive attacking feminism with the zeal of the convert. still, there’s plenty of evidence out there for people to judge what is or isn’t crap.

    and lest your assumption that i want you personally to be an endangered species (though that really couldn’t work if you bother to think about it, could it?) is taken as accurate, let me be clear that i’d be happy if opponents of radical feminism were an endangered species. don’t know why you assume i’d engage in a random ‘ad fem’ attack like that but there ya go. maybe i am part of the international suzanne moore conspiracy.

  10. If opponents of radical feminism are going to be an endangered species, radical feminism has to convince us of its arguments.

    I don’t find its arguments convincing in the slightest and neither do most opponents of radical feminism. So you are stuck with us. And hoping for people to just die out, or for ways of thinking to just die out, is a little fatalistic. How are you going to actually change people’s minds in the here and now?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>