Defamation and antisemitism

As I've mentioned before, SOS Rasisme in Norway is threatening to press charges of defamation against Demokratene and anyone else who accuses the organization of being antisemitic.  In correspondence with me, the organization has said that it feels it must defend itself vigorously against such charges.

It is indeed understandable that an organization founded to combat racism and bigotry must resist such allegations.  And by all accounts, the leaders of SOS Rasisme are sincerely outraged by the criticism they've been getting.

I'd predict that SOS Rasisme will get more controversy than they bargained for if they press charges.

There are several reasons why, keeping in mind that I am not a lawyer:

1. I am not even sure an organization can consider itself defamed.  The relevant sections in the Norwegian penal code (§§ 246 through §§254, search under "ærekrenkelse," then look up Chapter 23 in the search results) seem to indicate that only individuals can defame and be defamed.  SOS Rasisme may have to prove that certain named individuals within its organization were defamed, and that may be a tough burden to meet.
2. It's also interesting that the truth is not an absolutely defense against a charge of defamation.  If it can be proven that a true statement was made with no other purpose than to defame someone, the charge might stick. 
3. Without knowing precisely what was said or written that may have defamed SOS Rasisme, I think that the definition of "antisemitism" can also turn out to be tricky.  After all, antisemitism is a state of mind, and it's hard to prove someone's state of mind.  For example, David Irving's case against Deborah Lipstadt hinged not on antisemitism, but whether Irving could be said to be a Holocaust denier.  I am not sure whether this works better for the prosecution or the defense, but it's likely to confuse the issue. 
4. Things get even more complicated if you look at the known facts of the matter.  We know that:
   • SOS Rasisme made a determination that certain individuals would not be welcome to their commemoration event because of their political beliefs.
   • SOS Rasisme instructed the police that these individuals should be barred from attending the march.
   • These individuals did, as expected, show up, carrying an Israeli flag; and the police told them to stay away.
   • These individuals now argue that they were turned away because they carried an Israeli flag, not because they were likely to cause trouble in the march.
5. SOS Rasisme and the police claim that the individuals in question were unwelcome to the event because they held political convictions that were incompatible with the event's purpose; which is to say racist convictions.  I can only imagine that these individuals will also argue that they are in fact not racist, and may even file a countersuit. 
6. If I were going to speculate, I'd guess that the individuals knew that they'd be turned back because of their views on Islam, immigration, etc., and decided to make the Israeli flag the center of the controversy.
7. If someone is charged with defamation, they are likely to force SOS Rasisme to stipulate that it would be antisemitic to turn away someone from the march because they were visibly Jewish.  The question will then turn to whether SOS Rasisme's reason for turning away the individuals is plausible.

My recommendation to SOS Rasisme - if they were the least bit interested in my opinion - is rather to put effort and resources toward exposing the bigotry of the organizations that allegedly defamed them, and also use this as a way to discuss the nature of antisemitism in Norwegian society.   

Comments

[Øyvind, Bergen]

I'll not comment much on this. Most of the points you make are quite valid, I think. Your advice is also good, though SOS Rasisme has every reason to be outraged.

When it comes to point number one, though, SOS Rasisme can be considered what is called a judicial person, i.e. not a physical person, but still a person after the law.There is plenty of precedence for this when defamation is concerned.

http://www.medium.as/swolland/div_tekster/hoyesterett_leser_aviser.htm

[mr big dicks hot chicks]

I honestly don't want to be part of Canada. I've lived there for five years of my life, liked the people, didn't understand all the talk about Canadian culture, but thought it was a little depressing.

[mr big dicks hot chicks]

# If I were going to speculate, I'd guess that the individuals knew that they'd be turned back because of their views on Islam, immigration, etc., and decided to make the Israeli flag the center of the controversy.
# If someone is charged with defamation, they are likely to force SOS Rasisme to stipulate that it would be antisemitic to turn away someone from the march because they were visibly Jewish. The question will then turn to whether SOS Rasisme's reason for turning away the individuals is plausible.