Macrons to offer 'scientific evidence' to US court to prove Brigitte is a woman.

[Nearly Sane]

I struggle to see how they 'win' here


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg3llj5nxdo

[Gordon]

No doubt whatever they offer to the courts as evidence will be portrayed by some as the dreaded 'fake news', and the conspiracy theorists will have a great time.

The world is going mad.

[ad_orientem]

No doubt whatever they offer to the courts as evidence will be portrayed by some as the dreaded 'fake news', and the conspiracy theorists will have a great time.

The world is going mad.

But at least Candace Owens will be made bankrupt, which is in itself worth it.

[Aruntraveller]

This is just so off the scale fucking lunacy that I, along with many others, I'm sure, cannot believe the times we are living in.

[Nearly Sane]

But at least Candace Owens will be made bankrupt, which is in itself worth it.

Not convinced she will be

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SO Briggitte has decide to man up at last and provide evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

This whole situation seems totally bizarre to me unless the defamation laws in the US and/or France are totally different in the UK.

In the UK the burden of proof in defamation cases is reversed to that the claim is presumed to be false, and the burden is on the person making the claim (i.e. the defendant in this case Owens) to prove that it is true. Under UK law there is no onus on Macron to prove that the claim is false. However the claimant does need to demonstrate that the defamatory statement has caused harm.

And this is surely as it should be - otherwise anyone could make defamatory claims with impunity in cases where it is impossible to prove them to be false. Even though this is a case where it is possible to demonstrate the truth one way or the other, why on earth should the Macrons be expected to prove that she is a woman - the onus must surely be on Owens to prove that she is not.

But perhaps the law in the US/France is different, which would be nuts, meaning that someone can make a defamatory statement and have no requirement to prove that it is true if challenged in law.

[Nearly Sane]

This whole situation seems totally bizarre to me unless the defamation laws in the US and/or France are totally different in the UK.

In the UK the burden of proof in defamation cases is reversed to that the claim is presumed to be false, and the burden is on the person making the claim (i.e. the defendant in this case Owens) to prove that it is true. Under UK law there is no onus on Macron to prove that the claim is false. However the claimant does need to demonstrate that the defamatory statement has caused harm.

And this is surely as it should be - otherwise anyone could make defamatory claims with impunity in cases where it is impossible to prove them to be false. Even though this is a case where it is possible to demonstrate the truth one way or the other, why on earth should the Macrons be expected to prove that she is a woman - the onus must surely be on Owens to prove that she is not.

But perhaps the law in the US/France is different, which would be nuts, meaning that someone can make a defamatory statement and have no requirement to prove that it is true if challenged in law.

Just for clarification in the UK if it is believed to be true by the person making it and the person making it believed it in the public interest, and the court thinks an honest person could have held the opinion, then that is also a defence in the UK

[ProfessorDavey]

Just for clarification in the UK if it is believed to be true by the person making it and the person making it believed it in the public interest, and the court thinks an hour est person could have held the opinion, then that is also a defence in the UK

But we aren't talking about something that is a matter of opinion are we. Nope this is something which can be objectively verified. Therefore, under UK law were someone to make that claim the onus would be on them to prove it to be true. Or at the very least to provide the objective evidence to justify that this could be an honest belief that a reasonable person could hold. So the onus remains on the person making the claim.

But nonetheless, nothing in your point about UK law shifts the burden of proof onto the claimant requiring them to prove that the statement is false.

[Nearly Sane]

But we aren't talking about something that is a matter of opinion are we. Nope this is something which can be objectively verified. Therefore, under UK law were someone to make that claim the onus would be on them to prove it to be true. Or at the very least to provide the objective evidence to justify that this could be an honest belief that a reasonable person could hold. So the onus remains on the person making the claim.

But nonetheless, nothing in your point about UK law shifts the burden of proof onto the claimant requiring them to prove that the statement is false.

  I didn't say it did  i was just providing some clarification to help out.

The honest opinion idea is about you honestly having an incorrect opinion about facts so I'm not seeing the relevance of yiur first paragraph here

[ProfessorDavey]

  I didn't say it did  i was just providing some clarification to help out.

The honest opinion idea is about you honestly having an incorrect opinion about facts so I'm not seeing the relevance of yiur first paragraph here

The point is the 'reasonable person' test. It isn't simply about demonstrating that you genuinely believed something to be true (even if it isn't), but whether a 'reasonable person' (the 'man on the Clapham omnibus) would have reasonably held the same opinion.

If you make a false claim, just saying that you believed it to be true is nothing like enough to be a legitimate defence in defamation cases. And this is particularly the case where the defamatory claim is one of objective fact, not subjective opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

The point is the 'reasonable person' test. It isn't simply about demonstrating that you genuinely believed something to be true (even if it isn't), but whether a 'reasonable person' (the 'man on the Clapham omnibus) would have reasonably held the same opinion.

If you make a false claim, just saying that you believed it to be true is nothing like enough to be a legitimate defence in defamation cases. And this is particularly the case where the defamatory claim is one of objective fact, not subjective opinion.

Yes, and i covered that in my  initial clarification.  Essentially all defamatory claims revolve around things that can be objectively true. But I can obviously have a subjective opinion about a fact that is in incorrect. The honest opinion idea i  the Defamatoon Act isn't there to cover people holding subjective opinions about subjective matters, but about matters of fact 

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, and i covered that in my  initial clarification.  Essentially all defamatory claims revolve around things that can be objectively true. But I can obviously have a subjective opinion about a fact that is in incorrect. The honest opinion idea i  the Defamatoon Act isn't there to cover people holding subjective opinions about subjective matters, but about matters of fact

You can and that might be an 'honest opinion' defence. But this will only succeed if the 'opinion' is a reasonable one based on the actual facts available at the time. So an opinion that Brigitte is a man would have to be based on actual facts, which in this case are objective not subjective. So it folds back into the objective facts of the matter.

But again we have strayed far away from the substance of my original post - which was that the onus, in all cases, is on the defendant either to prove their statement is true or to rely on another defence (e.g. honest opinion, which in itself must be based on facts, so good luck in this case!). In no circumstances would the complainant under UK law be expected to prove that the statement is false.

[Nearly Sane]

You can and that might be an 'honest opinion' defence. But this will only succeed if the 'opinion' is a reasonable one based on the actual facts available at the time. So an opinion that Brigitte is a man would have to be based on actual facts, which in this case are objective not subjective. So it folds back into the objective facts of the matter.

But again we have strayed far away from the substance of my original post - which was that the onus, in all cases, is on the defendant either to prove their statement is true or to rely on another defence (e.g. honest opinion, which in itself must be based on facts, so good luck in this case!). In no circumstances would the complainant under UK law be expected to prove that the statement is false.

Except your original post on the subject didn't cover the honest opinion defence which is why I provided the clarification

[ProfessorDavey]

Except your original post on the subject didn't cover the honest opinion defence which is why I provided the clarification

Because it was about the burden of proof in defamation cases, which rests with the defendant, not the complainant. My point being that under UK law there is no burden on the Macrons to prove that the claims are false.

You were the one who raised the honest opinion defence - which still needs to be based on facts and also the burden still rests with the defendant to justify this defence, not on the claimant.

[Nearly Sane]

Because it was about the burden of proof in defamation cases, which rests with the defendant, not the complainant. My point being that under UK law there is no burden on the Macrons to prove that the claims are false.

You were the one who raised the honest opinion defence - which still needs to be based on facts and also the burden still rests with the defendant to justify this defence, not on the claimant.

Yes, I know i raised it, for clarification because you had said truth needed to be proved, which is not the case in the honest opinion defence.  And given that you didn't your statement "But again we have strayed far away from the substance of my original post - which was that the onus, in all cases, is on the defendant either to prove their statement is true or to rely on another defence" in the later post was incorrect.