Posted on 03/19/2004 3:31:58 PM PST by BlackVeil
British MP George Galloway accepted undisclosed High Court libel damages and a public apology today over an article which said he had opposed the conflict in Iraq because he had been paid by Saddam's regime.
His solicitor, Mark Bateman, told Mr Justice Eady that the allegations in The Christian Science Monitor in April last year were "false and without foundation".
Mr Galloway, the Independent MP for Glasgow Kelvin, was at London's High Court to hear Mr Bateman say that the article in the Boston-based newspaper, which publishes in the UK through the internet, reported on documents which had been given to a journalist by an Iraqi general.
These, he said, purported to show that Mr Galloway had received payments of more than 10 million US dollars in return for his support of Saddam Hussein's regime.
According to the article, the payments pointed to a concerted effort by the regime to win friends in the west who could promote Iraqi interests, firstly by lifting sanctions against Iraq and later in blocking war plans.
One of the documents was reported as stating that payments were made to Mr Galloway in return for his "courageous and daring stands against the enemies of Iraq, like Blair, the British Prime Minister, and for his opposition in the House of Commons and Lords against all outrageous lies against our patient people".
Mr Bateman said: "The allegations contained in the Christian Science Monitor?s story that Mr Galloway opposed the UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq and, thereafter, opposed the recent conflict in Iraq because he had been paid by the Iraqi regime are false and without foundation.
"The allegations were highly defamatory of Mr Galloway. Understandably, they caused immense distress and anxiety to Mr Galloway, his family, his consitituents and supporters.
"Mr Galloway was not willing to let his reputation be impugned in this way."
Mr Bateman said the newspaper, alerted to the possibility that the Iraqi general may have been the source of other documents which were claimed to be forgeries, then initiated its own inquiries into the authenticity of the documents described in the article.
On June 20, it published an article accepting that the documents were forgeries, and apologised to Mr Galloway.
"It accepts that there is and was no foundation for the allegations made against Mr Galloway in the article and that there is no truth whatsoever in those allegations."
He said that the newspaper had already set the record straight in its internet edition, had agreed to maintain that correction and appeared in court to apologise publicly.
In order to compensate Mr Galloway for the harm done to his reputation, it had agreed to pay him a suitable sum in damages and his legal costs.
It had also undertaken not to repeat the defamatory allegations.
Julia Schopflin, for the newspaper's publisher The First Church of Christ, Scientist and its editor Paul Van Slambrouck, said that she entirely accepted everything said on Mr Galloway's behalf.
She said: "The Christian Science Monitor published the article based on documents which it believed were genuine but which it now accepts were forgeries.
"It deeply regrets that the article was published and again offers its sincere apologies to Mr Galloway."
So9
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.