A short reflection on the #superinjunction

I see that these terrible superinjunctions are now being issued because the news being gagged is ‘defamatory’

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2011/05/13/blogger-publishes-gagging-order-115875-23127867/

Surely, the allegations are only defamatory if they are untrue. If they have even a scintilla of truth in them (and they are usually about extra-marital affairs, poor employment practices and the like, the nature of which is simply black and white) then they cannot be defamatory, because the truth is paramount.

I take no delight in reading about who these people are shagging, but when a superinjunction is raised because someone stole, cheated, lied, betrayed or acted improperly, then I am being denied the truth, and no judicial process should be permitted to prevent the exploration and dissemination of the truth. Today it’s about shagging, tomorrow it might be about the very nature of democracy – let us not allow Judges to create privacy for the rich and famous and leave the rest of us in the dark and helpless.

I have been a long-time subscriber to Private Eye, and only recently had to cancel my subscription as part of an economy drive, which I deeply regret. Reading about injustice stirred me into action. My problem is that I prefer the truth to anything else, and I prefer to say the truth rather than play the political game. Maybe that’s why I shall remain here for a long time.