Our reputation is one of the most important and treasured possessions that we own as it affects our standing with others in society. When our reputation is harmed, we are harmed because our standing within society is harmed. This has been recognised for centuries and in our Common Law it comes under the Right of “personal security”. Personal security has been established as an “absolute Right” and in our ancient constitutional documents these Rights are referred to as our “Liberties”.
Therefore slander and libel are harmful to your reputation and at Common Law, offenders can be sued for damages.
It is evident that in England there are two Globalist agenda’s at play that directly affect us right now, the UN’s replacement migration strategy (mass immigration) and, mass vaccination of the population leading to vaccine passports/digital ID.
Attacks tarnishing the good reputation of any opposition of these two agenda’s are being committed by the media encouraged by the British Globalist establishment with the intention of “nudging” public opinion. These attacks are very simple and consist of a single word that when used in the wrong context are designed to demonise the person opposing, and shame them into silence and compliance.
Both of these words are of equal severity within today’s society and both are equally injurious to the reputation. But when these words are used without foundation, they create the potential for criminal action in a court of law.
ANTIVAXXER and RACIST.
An antivaxxer is a person who for whatever reason is against ALL forms of vaccination. Antivaxxers are publicly portrayed in a specific negative light. They are conspiracy theorists, they are incapable of rational thought, they are paranoid, they are anti social, they are not good people at all, etc, etc.
The word “antivaxxer” has negative connotations is being used in a derogatory way to shame and cause harm to your reputation in the eyes of society. Opposition to one vaccine does not warrant the label “antivaxxer” so when used incorrectly is defamatory and the person committing the offence has caused harm to your reputation. Not only that, the owners of the platform that the libel was published on are liable to prosecution too.
We all know what the true definition of a racist is. Opposition to mass immigration cannot be considered racist. For the same reasons stated previously when that word is used without foundation then the offender and anyone supporting the offender can be sued.
When these words are used without material foundation to demonise, or shut down legitimate opposition of these two Globalist agenda’s, they are damaging to the reputation and the offender can be sued. This is our Common Law protecting us.
So to protect our reputation from harm the offender must prove their publicly stated claim that you are in deed an antivaxxer or that you are indeed a racist. If they cannot, they must retract their statements else face the consequences deemed appropriate by the experts (people that know better than them) in a court of law.
Our way forward then is when someone online makes libellous statements, document any such unfounded claims, demand proof of claim else retract it and publicly apologise, else “see you in court”. If they refuse, contact the platform owners. If they know what’s good for them they will remove it.
It’s as simple as that.
Know your Common Law Rights and protect your good reputation.
This is what Halsbury’s Laws of England has to say:
(ii) What is Defamatory
42. Meaning of ‘defamatory statements’.
The essence of a defamatory statement is its tendency to injure the reputation of another person. There is no complete or comprehensive definition of what constitutes a defamatory statement, since the word ‘defamatory’ is nowhere precisely defined1. Generally speaking, a statement is defamatory of the person of whom it is published if it tends to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally2 or if it exposes him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule3 or if it causes him to be shunned or avoided4.”
“38. Joint and several liability.
Every person who takes part in or procures the publication of a libel1 is prima facie liable jointly and severally for all the damage caused by it2. Thus, if a libel appears in a newspaper, the author3 of the libel and the proprietor4, editor5, printer6, publisher7 and vendor8 of the newspaper are prima facie jointly and severally liable.
Like this:
Like Loading...