"The Truth is No Defence"

 

There is a new show on Richplanet TV about some new information regarding two of the supposed victims of the Manchester Arena bombing of 2017. This is all very interesting, but the most significant part of the programme, as well as disturbing, is the prologue. Richard D Hall reveals an update in his legal battle; see the background links for details. Richard continues to defend himself defiantly against the accusations of the plaintiffs who contest that Richard's publications about the incident in Manchester are a form of harassment. The obvious response from anybody in that situation is simply to plead fair comment. This is a common defence in a libel case, but the plaintiffs are applying to have all Richard's evidence excluded. If they have their way, the trial will proceed under the assumnption that the official story is true. Source: https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=307&part=1. It reminds me of another similar trial, that of the researcher Ernst Zündel. Zündel was convicted several times in Canada of expressing opinions about a subject specifically prohibited by Canadian law. When he went to court he tried to defend himself by saying "Look, I can prove what I'm saying about this subject is true." He was not permitted to table this testimony in court or even subject it to an open debate. The judge did not dispute Zündel's assertions; he simply stated that the opinion was prohibted, regardless of whether it was true or false and so, to coin an infamous catchphrase: the truth is no defence. I understand why many people will find Zündel's views offensive, but surely you realize that if we allow the state to silence people for expressing a viewpoint because it offends us then we enter a very dark place indeed. Something similar happened when Ian R Crane tried to defend Tony Farrell at his police disciplinary. The boss said "You might be right, but it doesn't matter." Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mpGY7aR1oo. What kind of law is this where what is true or false doesn't matter!? How can Richard successfully defend himself in this case when the very basis of his reasons for publishing his material is struck from the record? Hopefully Richard will be able to prevent this application. I'm not a solicitor, but I would say his evidence is totally relevent because it concerns whether the Hibberts were actually there, which is central to their claim against him. I'm pleased to say that the community has rallied round Richard and stood up against this obvious injustice. Richard has raised most of the money he needs for his legal costs, but he will need as much as possible so please do send him some more if you can, see: https://www.richplanet.net/legal.php.
See here for background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/07/rdh-lawsuit-mini-portal.html.