Page 9 | Omid Djalili on women's rights issues - not funny at all

BaronessWrongCrowd · 18/02/2021 18:31

There is probably a defamation case there though given what she said. Plenty of GC people have threatened to sue, why shouldn't people who are trans supportive?

There's a defamation case even though there is evidence proving beyond any doubt that he referred to women responding to him as Nazi's and he hasn't got a leg to stand on cos you know screenshots. Any solicitor worth his/her salt would tell him to piss off.

BarbaraofKent · 18/02/2021 18:31

There is probably a defamation case there though given what she said. Plenty of GC people have threatened to sue, why shouldn't people who are trans supportive?

Do go on... What did she say that was defamatory?

He tweeted an article which contained reference to a woman being no platformed for her GC views - he referred to the people being no platformed as 'Nazis'.

Now presumably this is because he didn't actually read the article and was just going for virtue cookies, but he could have just admitted that!

BaronessWrongCrowd · 18/02/2021 18:32

And yes, I read through the thread on Twitter.

nauticant · 18/02/2021 18:36

Anyone can launch a defamation case over just about anything. However, if Omid Djalili discussed this with sensible lawyers they'd advise him that if the other side didn't immediately cave in he'd be aiming for a Pyrrhic victory.

MoltenLasagne · 18/02/2021 18:44

One day a GC woman will be kicked off twitter for stating the sun rises in the East and we'll still get posters here arguing that any impartial person can see they're wrong.

jj1968 · 18/02/2021 18:46

@BarbaraofKent

There is probably a defamation case there though given what she said. Plenty of GC people have threatened to sue, why shouldn't people who are trans supportive?

Do go on... What did she say that was defamatory?

He tweeted an article which contained reference to a woman being no platformed for her GC views - he referred to the people being no platformed as 'Nazis'.

Now presumably this is because he didn't actually read the article and was just going for virtue cookies, but he could have just admitted that!

She made a statement of fact about what he 'thought' which could certainly damage his reputation if widely repeated. And I don't think she had any foundation for that claim, it was speculation based on another highly ambiguous statement he made - and remember the onus would be on her to prove he thought that, not on him to disprove it.

WeeBisom · 18/02/2021 18:46

How exactly is she supposed to have defamed him? And what serious harm has he suffered, or is likely to suffer, due to her statement? In the Hopkins v Monroe case that he cites, Monroe suffered repetitional damage because Hopkins implied that Monroe supported desecrating war memorials. Monroe had done a lot of work for war veteran charities, so this could seriously have damaged her reputation. So.. in what way are these situations alike?

WeeBisom · 18/02/2021 18:55

Oh, I see now. I don't think he has a leg to stand on. The defamatory meaning is surely going to be along the lines of 'Omid thinks that feminist academics are Nazis.' But in reference to the linked article he said 'they are really worried that students don't want to listen to Nazis?' So he did call them Nazis. You can't damage a person's reputation by citing things they have actually said!

CoffeeTeaChocolate · 18/02/2021 19:11

Didn’t he double down?

Omid Djalili on women's rights issues - not funny at all

MoreHippoThanPenguin · 18/02/2021 19:12

Tweet here

jj1968 · 18/02/2021 19:22

@CoffeeTeaChocolate

Didn’t he double down?

Not really doubling down, it's quite possible he was referring to the story and it's potential consequences as a whole then the small part of the article that discusses Selina Todd. That seems quite likely to me.

jj1968 · 18/02/2021 19:29

@WeeBisom

Oh, I see now. I don't think he has a leg to stand on. The defamatory meaning is surely going to be along the lines of 'Omid thinks that feminist academics are Nazis.' But in reference to the linked article he said 'they are really worried that students don't want to listen to Nazis?' So he did call them Nazis. You can't damage a person's reputation by citing things they have actually said!

She went a bit further than that, and he didn't say feminists are Nazis, that implication was just assumed by the people attacking him. I think if DrEm's removed the tweet, I can't tell because she's gone private, then it's petty to pursue it and it won't get very far, but if she digs her heels in then he could well have a case.

nauticant · 18/02/2021 19:32

Don't these discussions usually go down the path that having a reasonable belief in something is a defence to a claim of defamation? Not on this thread for some reason.

Thelnebriati · 18/02/2021 19:34

''Wow. You can't just call people nazis!'' is not an attack.

Helmetbymidnight · 18/02/2021 19:38

Plenty of GC people have threatened to sue, why shouldn't people who are trans supportive?

what an odd reading of events

i dont think theres exactly been a shortage of misogynists and tra's threatening to sue (and then losing) is there? what about the pig in the wig case? and the woman from mermaids against miranda yardley?

it will be great entertainment if omid took his nazi-jokes nonsense to court and claimed defamation.

jj1968 · 18/02/2021 20:02

@nauticant

Don't these discussions usually go down the path that having a reasonable belief in something is a defence to a claim of defamation? Not on this thread for some reason.

It's possible there could be a defence based on honest comment but it seems very thin. She specifically claimed that he thought something based on something quite different he said, I think it would fail the reasonable person test.

nauticant · 18/02/2021 20:16

Today black is white. Tomorrow white is black. The day after is anyone's guess.

jj1968 · 18/02/2021 20:42

@nauticant

Today black is white. Tomorrow white is black. The day after is anyone's guess.

Or perhaps just each case is different so blanket assumptions are not very helpful.

KevinTheBird · 18/02/2021 21:35

Am I the only one feeling really pleased that (so far) not one of Dr Em’s followers has given OD the screenshots he’s asking for?

Melroses · 18/02/2021 21:48

If the original tweet was a 'joke', aren't all the other tweets also a jokes?

Not that I saw anything particularly funny.

MissBarbary · 18/02/2021 21:48

She went a bit further than that, and he didn't say feminists are Nazis, that implication was just assumed by the people attacking him. I think if DrEm's removed the tweet, I can't tell because she's gone private, then it's petty to pursue it and it won't get very far, but if she digs her heels in then he could well have a case

I don't know who Dr Em (M?) is or what she said. I don't think he called Selina Todd a Nazi although I can see how it could be interpreted as that.

He did call the Finnish lady tweeting as @Tarunperin "Adolph" and "Eva Braun" . I don't see how that can be interpreted as anything other than calling her a Nazi. I'm not sure how you can jokingly call someone a Nazi.

nauticant · 18/02/2021 21:49

Having realised that accusing those who disagree with him of being "Nazis" isn't a winning strategy, he's changing tack and now calling them "bots":

twitter.com/omid9/status/1362489847454261250

His repeated tweeting on this is making him look unhinged.

MissBarbary · 18/02/2021 21:57

@nauticant

Having realised that accusing those who disagree with him of being "Nazis" isn't a winning strategy, he's changing tack and now calling them "bots":

twitter.com/omid9/status/1362489847454261250

His repeated tweeting on this is making him look unhinged.

I thought it was interesting that quite a few people calling him out were men and making the point it's not a good look.

nauticant · 18/02/2021 21:57

There is gold in replies to him:

twitter.com/omid9/status/1362511435578957827

Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/02/2021 21:58

JJ's response is even more hilarious than Omid himself. Top entertainment tonight