“SADDAM HUSSEIN rejected a request from George Galloway for more money, saying that the Labour backbencher’s ‘exceptional’ demands were not affordable, according to an official document found by The DailyTelegraph in Baghdad. The letter from Saddam’s most senior aide was sent in response to Mr Galloway’s reported demand for additional funds. This was outlined in a memorandum from the Iraqi intelligence chief disclosed in The Daily Telegraph yesterday. Mr Galloway denies receiving any money from the regime… Saddam was rejecting two specific requests allegedly made by Mr Galloway, as recorded in the intelligence chief’s memorandum. The first was for a greater share of the profits from oil exports. The memorandum said that Mr Galloway was already receiving between 10 and 15 cents per barrel of three million barrels exported every six months: an annual sum of at least£375,000 . Mr Galloway’s second reported request was for ‘exceptional commercial and contractual’ opportunities with three ministries and the state electricity commission. These requests for more sources of income fell on deaf ears, but Saddam’s decision not to allow them did not apply to Mr Galloway’s existing deals. Before Saddam issued his rejection, Mr Galloway sent his ‘work programme’ for 2000 to Mr Aziz…”
“Did the Defendant take any steps to verify the contents of the Baghdad documents, in so far as they related to the Claimant, by reference to independent sources of information, such as the governments of the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia, Mr Fawaz Zureikat, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Home Office or intelligence sources, before publishing the articles complained of?”
“It is one matter to apply this principle when deciding whether an article should be regarded as defamatory. Then the question being considered is one of meaning. It will be an altogether different matter to apply the principle when deciding whether a journalist or newspaper acted responsibly. Then the question being considered is one of conduct”
“23 Stated shortly, the Reynolds privilege is concerned to provide a proper degree of protection for responsible journalism when reporting matters of public concern. Responsible journalism is the point at which a fair balance is held between freedom of expression on matters of public concern and the reputation of individuals. Maintenance of this standard is in the public interest and in the interest of those whose reputations are involved. It can be regarded as the price journalists pay in return for the privilege. If they are to have the benefit of the privilege journalists must exercise due professional skill and care. 59. 25 … Where questions of defamation may arise ambiguity is best avoided as much as possible. It should not be a screen behind which a journalist is “willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike”
“The information provided to the Commission suggests that the Executive Committee considered these payments were necessary and were unaware that they were unauthorised. The Commission accepts that none of the Executive Committee acted in bad faith and that the services provided were of value to the Appeal”
“The truth is I never met, to the best of my knowledge, any member of Iraqi intelligence. I have never in my life seen a barrel of oil, let alone bought or sold one. I have never asked Iraq for money to help our campaign. Our campaign was funded throughout by private donations and governmental donations from Arab countries, friendly to Britain and the United States”
“I don’t believe he was soliciting funds from the regime on my behalf. I don’t believe he was soliciting funds from the regime at all. He was an extremely generous benefactor of the Mariam Appeal. He’s a very successful businessman. I have no reason to believe whatsoever that he solicited funds from the regime”
“This memo that’s come to light talks about concessions for trading, I think, it’s three million barrels of oil for six months which must be worth quite a lot of money and someone in my head office is doing the maths but I think they came up with a figure of something in the region of£200,000 . I mean, did the Mariam Appeal have income on that basis?”
“Just to recap. You’ve sort of made this clear before, but I just want to be sort of crystal clear on this, because I mean it’s quite serious. You say the Mariam Campaign sort of never to your knowledge sort of received money or solicited money from the Iraqi regime?”
“Did they ever – did they ever sort of try to give you money? It must have been very tempting for them”
“Well why would I? Look, first of all, there’s no sensitivity as far as I’m concerned. There is no sensitivity. I was involved for many years in fighting the full might of the British and American state and their big media friends, like yourselves. That was a very difficult battle. We had to find support where we could get it and we operated as a political organisation, as political organisations do. They don’t open themselves up to the attentions of their enemies and I include you and the people like you as being my enemies. So from my point of view it’s not sensitive at all. And I myself was not any kind of signatory or trustee or beneficiary of any of the money raised in the campaign. I’ve never been a signatory on any of the chequebooks. I’ve never been responsible for the expenditure of any money. I’ve never myself received any money, any benefits from these campaigns. On the contrary. I have given my political life’s blood to them. So, from my point of view, it isn’t sensitive”
“About half way through the translation I saw that a paragraph (numbered 2) recorded a meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and Mr Galloway in person. During this meeting Mr Galloway himself had apparently requested further financial support from Iraq. From my reading of the short summary filed earlier by Mr Blair, I had supposed that Mr Zureikat had been the central figure in dealings with the Iraqi regime. Now for the first time Mr Galloway was implicated directly and in detail. The revelation changed the potential story, by removing the suggestion that Mr Galloway had operated solely through an intermediary”
“Mr Galloway: I have never seen a barrel of oil, never owned one, never bought one, never sold one Mr Sparrow: But I’m asking about the Mariam Appeal, the Mariam Campaign”
“In a modern democracy all those who venture into public life, in whatever capacity, must expect to have their motives subjected to scrutiny and discussed. Nor is it realistic today to demand that such debate should be hobbled by the constraints of conventional good manners – still less of deference.”
“… in the absence of any additional safeguard for reputation, a newspaper, anxious to be first with a ‘scoop’, would in practice be free to publish seriously defamatory misstatements of fact based on the slenderest of materials. Unless the paper chose later to withdraw the allegations, the politician thus defamed would have no means of clearing his name, and the public could have no means of knowing where the truth lay. Some further protection for reputation is needed if this can be achieved without a disproportionate incursion into freedom of expression.”
“They may feel misled. They may even, as they see how much more the occupying forces are doing for Iraqi civilians than the old regime ever did, feel guilty. Above all, they may be reluctant to march in support of this kingdom’s enemies in future”
“Once Mr Galloway had been drawn into the web, he could not have escaped without risking the destruction of his career. His exposure suggests that others may follow. Though he is a colourful and eloquent figure, Mr Galloway does not wield much power or influence. He would not be the only Western European politician to have yielded to the temptations of Saddam. Others who acted as his apologists over many years must now be wondering what further documents will emerge from the ruins of the regime”
“In these circumstances what is the Court to do, if the Claimant succeeds on liability? The situation engineered by the Claimant threatens to bring the judicial proceeding into disrepute: if the Claimant is vindicated by the judicial proceeding, and Parliament ignores it, the judicial proceeding is set at naught and brought into disrepute or even (if the Parliamentary investigation finds the Claimant guilty) contempt. On the other hand, if Parliament accepts that the Claimant has been vindicated by the judicial proceeding, and closes down its investigation of the truth of the matter, the situation will be right for a public outcry, and both Parliament and the judicial proceeding will have been brought into disrepute”
“Mr Galloway: …I freely concede to you that throughout, especially throughout the period of ownership of Lord Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel, The Daily Telegraph hated everything that I believed about the Middle East. Mr Price: And you are on record as saying that [is] because Barbara Amiel is Jewish. Mr Galloway: I beg your pardon. That is an – if you can libel someone in a courtroom, that is a very serious libel. Mr Price: I had better show you the letter then. Mr Galloway: Yes, you’d better. Mr Price: It will be found in a minute. Mr Galloway: Yes, I hope so. That’s a clear accusation of antisemitism against me and I demand that you withdraw it. Mr Price: I am not accusing- Mr Galloway: I demand that you withdraw it. Mr Price: I am not accusing you of anti-semitism. Mr Galloway: I have never made an anti-semitic comment in my entire life and I demand that you withdraw it. Mr Price: This is the letter, I can hand you a copy of it so you can see it, and I will hand one to my Lord and to my learned friend…look at the fifth paragraph there: ‘The Telegraph group is controlled by Lord and Lady Black, Barbara Amiel, two of Israel’s most vociferous supporters’ Mr Galloway: And in what sense is that a reference to somebody’s religion? Mr Price: It is a reference to Black’s nationality. I will tell you what it is. Mr Galloway: My Lord, this is an outrage. This letter which has been produced does not mention the word ‘Jewish’, does not mention that anyone involved in the letter is Jewish. It says ‘Sharon’s Israel most vocal supporters’. Mr Price: …In this letter you are saying that The Telegraph reports that you are suing on were in some way inspired by the fact that Lord and Lady Black are supporters of Israel. Mr Galloway: I don’t know if I’m in order here but I demand that you withdraw. Mr Price: Just answer the question. Mr Galloway: I demand that you withdraw the allegation of anti-semitism against me. Mr Price: I have not accused you of anti-semitism. Mr Galloway: The court record shows very clearly that you said that in this letter I referred to Lady Black as being Jewish. It was a lie, a lie, a lie. Mr Price: All right, I withdraw the suggestion that you referred to her as being Jewish. You referred to her as being one of Israel’s most vociferous supporters. Mr Galloway: I don’t think that even she would dispute that”