Scandalum Magnatum

Malicious lawfare is a SLAAP in the face to public participation

The Defamation Trial Of John Peter Zenger, 1734

A premium plan of justice has emerged in the Irish Court system as the elites use lawfare against those who “scandalise the Magnates”. Kitty Holland’s ridiculous outcome against our cherished seanchaí John Waters has signalled a new low for the judiciary as they have chosen to place the Mockingbird Media beyond reproach in what can only be described as a show trial. I won’t delve into the fine details of that case until I see what way Waters is going to play it so I will just reference the decision in a non penetrative fashion in the meantime and deal only with what is written in the papers. What I will say is that there is blood in the water now and the Shark’s can smell it.

No sooner has sword of silence been swung for the neck of John Waters, has his supposed friend and political suiter Kevin Sharkey threatened the Nationalist community with defamation cases for their total and absolute rejection of his troublemaking and treachery. So ignorant to the plight of his friend at the hands of the establishment is Sharkey, that rather than seeing Kitty Holland’s establishment backed attack against his freedom of expression as a horrible indictment on our society, he seems to have viewed that ruling as an opportunity, a great way to achieve a bisha ciúnas from his detractors. So impressed with the methods deployed by his fellow Bourgeoisie nobility was he, that rather than come out in defence of John Waters, he took the exact same sword, still dripping with the warm plasma of John Waters right to free expression, and waved it at the rest of us menacingly.

As swords such as these are drawn against us, we must don our suits of armour accordingly. The term that is widely used in the western world to describe this political attack through the courts is called lawfare. Lawfare, is something we will have to get used to as a movement if we hope to continue our current course and at this speed. Methods used by the Deep State in America and the UK have seeped into our establishment as the Liberal Order infects every cell of our institutions. Lawfare is used not only directly against political opponents, but also as demoralisation tactic against the general public. The ability to challenge the outward expression of the press is arguably more important than the freedom of the press itself. Deifying the nobility of the MSM serves only to foster the creation of an underclass of society who can be seen but not heard and who will be terrified to challenge the prevailing narratives excreted by our liege lords. True or false.

Defamation proceedings as a means to silence a person have always been an elitist grift, the basis of which was formed within the confines of the higher social classes as a means to protect them from earlier forms of cancel culture and attack from competing business owners, suiters, and politicians. This acted, and acts still to this day, as a buffer for the status quo. The lower classes never truly availed of defamation laws as they harboured thicker skin and an ability to get on with things. This has progressed however to the point of weaponisation, where it is now recognised by the UN as a problem. This particular paper, titled The “misuse” of the judicial system to attack freedom of expression, gives a very authentic, measured view on the issue of defamation and exposes the the use of defamation litigation to supress journalistic and individual freedom of expression. At the end of this report, the process of vexatious litigation with a view to silencing others is outlined under the Acronym SLAAP ( Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation ).

SLAAP’s are legal claims that are typically initiated by a powerful actor (a state body/official, high-profile individual or firm) to intimidate and silence weaker parties who criticise or disseminate public interest messages unfavourable to them. The real objective is not to win the case, but to overwhelm the defendant through protracted legal proceedings, excessive costs – even at the risk of bankruptcy – and the related psychological burden. SLAPPs focused on defamation charges are very commonly used to deter journalists from advancing their work, preventing the publication of certain content or causing its removal, and discouraging others from covering the same issues.

Kitty Holland’s case against John Waters is probably the most text book SLAAP we have yet seen. Kitty’s reputation was severely damaged by her cavalier coverage of an alleged migrant camp attack last year which she hasn’t recovered from, placing her in the bracket of ‘cornered rat’ and therefore a SLAAP is required to save face. The date upon which Kitty initiated proceedings against Mr. Waters would be a very interesting fact to establish here. If Ms. Holland lashed out at Waters retrospectively in a desperate attempt to save her reputation, in the midst of an unrelated scandal that had nothing to do with Mr. Waters and 6 years after the incident took place no less, then her case is almost certainly lost on appeal. One can only hope Mr. Waters considers this pertinent fact if he appeals the case. The words of the Judge who awarded the damages to Holland seem to align quiet well with my theory of what happened here.

Judge O’Connor awarded general damages of €35,000, saying Holland was “held in very high esteem as a journalist by her peers and this is confirmed today by this court”.

The Judge in making a point to establish a blatantly embellished opinion of Ms. Holland as the accepted view of her held by the Justice system (and therefore by you else there be a penalty), is fundamentally improper and partisan. Kitty Holland is not unanimously respected by her “peers”. She is not respected by the Irish Times readership or the general public at large either. She has repeatedly attacked the lions share of the population for holding various, nationalist, conservative or traditional views. She unceremoniously attacked Aisling Murphy’s grieving partner after he gave a victim impact statement following the conviction of her killer, accusing him of “incitement to hatred” in a video that is an incredibly difficult watch and a heinous use of an impact statement to push for hate speech laws. Hollands comments, which are likely litigious, were made through a British media outlet providing her a possible layer of jurisdictional protection and likely a calculated manoeuvre. It doesn’t end there, Kitty Holland participated in a campaign of lies from the media surrounding attacks on migrants, staying silent in the presence of gross misrepresentations of the truth that suited her narrative, only to come clean on the matter when pressed by Gript. Hack journalism doesn’t have to be bare faced lies, it simply has to be antagonistic to the reader or viewers quest for the truth, and Kitty Holland is a Misinformation Magnate in that regard.

The court ruling is deeply disturbing although the reporting on it is very limited at this time so I will ask the reader to consider this and also respect Johns appeal window and allow him to decide what he is doing without unfair pressure from us. My opinion thus far is this,The court finishing its ruling with the line, “and this is confirmed today by this court”, in reference to the court endowed good reputation, is a Freudian slip of sorts that will be picked up on by the keen reader. I believe the objective of the case was to repair the damage caused to Kitty Holland’s reputation by Kitty Holland, not John Waters, and the Judge, in my humble opinion was prepared to give a sub-standard ruling, kicking the hot potato down the path of appeals to some other unfortunate soul, all the while draining an old man of his retirement savings and his right to form and impart his opinions. Either way his words serve to elevate Holland to the status of an Abrahamic prophet in terms of our ability to question her. The Fear of being SLAAP’d and the eagerness to issue a SLAAP has certainly gone up in recent days, the Chilling effect in all its splendour.

The Irish courts are seemingly hungry for these cases, promiscuously entertaining SLAAP’s from various walks of life that play ball with the establishment. David Quinn for instance has previously taken legal action, including threats of legal action, as a means to silence dissent against him and the Iona institute, which if I am being honest, has done more to harm his reputation than any outside utterance ever could . SLAAP’s are a pathetic, intimidation tactic, usually deployed by vexatious litigants, political deep state or vengeful narcissists who cant take the heat of the free market of ideas. It is the role of the courts, at all levels, to identify a SLAAP as vexatious and to deny it at the point of entry. Allowing a SLAAP to proceed immediately defames the recipient with little to no recourse through appeals and the costs shouldered without any scrutiny as to the motives of the claimant unless proven by the accused. Shame on anyone who takes a spurious defamation case in the political sphere, left or right but in particular the media. The only possible positive take away from this is that the propagandists may have given up on the Hate Speech bill and are instead resorting to the path of issuing SLAAP’s to establish the Chilling effect they so dearly desire.