Bahrain Sues to Suppress Police State Terror Truths - by Stephen Lendman
On June 14, London Independent writer Robert Fisk headlined, "I saw these brave doctors trying to save lives - these charges are a pack of lies," saying:
The Khalifa monarchy "started an utterly fraudulent trial of 48 surgeons, doctors, paramedics and nurses, accusing them of trying to topple the tin-pot monarchy of this Sunni minority emirate."
One of many Bahrain articles addressed this topic, accessed through the following link:
Fisk said he witnessed medical heroism firsthand, "drenched in their patients' blood, desperately trying to staunch the bullet wounds of pro-democracy demonstrators, shot in cold blood" by state security force thugs, a Khalifa monarchy specialty.
"The idea that (these doctors) are guilty of (state crimes) is not just preposterous. It is insane, a total perversion, (the) total opposite (of) truth....(Bahrain is) a Saudi palatinate, a confederated province of Saudi Arabia, a pocket-sized weasel state from which all journalists should in future use the dateline: Manama, Occupied Bahrain."
On June 15, Independent writer Richard Hall headlined, "Bahrain 'to sue over Independent reporting,' " saying:
The Khalifa monarchy "commissioned a UK-based law firm to file a case against The Independent for its reporting on the crackdowns on (internal) protests...."
Mainly directed against Fisk's article, it also claims that:
"using columns, features and news to publish misinformation in repeated attacks on our people and rulers amounts to libel and will be treated as such in accordance with the law."
The monarchy, of course, spurns international law and its own constitution, reigning daily terror since mid-February on pro-democracy supporters. In fact, every imaginable barbarity is being inflicted, including Obama administration supported cold-blooded murder, mass arrests, detentions, torture, and bogusly charging medical providers helping victims with baseless crimes.
Lawyers for London contributor David Banks asked, "Can Bahrain's government sue the Independent for libel?" saying:
If it succeeds, it will defy "the well-established principle that governments cannot sue for libel," instituted in 1993 by the House of Lords in the Derbyshire County Council v. Times newspapers case.
Two Times articles "questioned the propriety of investments for the Council's superannuation fund. The authority sued for libel for the damage done to its reputation." The lower court denied it. The Council appealed. Dismissing it, the House of Lords said:
"It was of the highest importance that a democratically elected governmental body should be open to uninhibited public criticism, and since the threat of civil actions for defamation would place an undesirable fetter on the freedom to express such criticism, it would be contrary to the public interest for institutions of central or local government to have any right at common law to maintain an action for damages for defamation."