Journalist sued for reporting the facts


Using the court system to try to silence journalists has sadly become more and more common these days. While legal jihad does have a ‘chilling effect’ on other journalists it also brings to the public’s attention the facts and allows the journalist (while defending themselves) to keep the facts in the public eye for a much longer time than they previously could have.

Admittedly this comes at a great emotional and financial cost but the person putting them through the ordeal is one hundred percent responsible for creating the ‘Streisand effect’ and ensuring that what they wanted hidden will be spread far and wide.

The latest journalist to be sued for reporting on the facts is Katie Hopkins from Rebel Media who last week went to Molenbeek which is a Muslim no-go zone?in Brussels, Belgium. Quote:

[…] It?s the most terrorist-infested neighbourhood in all of Europe.

Even its mayor, Francoise Schepmans, describes Molenbeek as a ?breeding ground for violence.”

Countless terrorist attacks around the world have been plotted from there.

Including the horrific attack on Paris in November, 2015,?that killed 130 people and wounded more than 400.

And after the Paris attacks, the orchestrator of the slaughter went back to Molenbeek to hide.

In fact, it wasn?t until?four months later?that one of the Paris terrorists, Salah Abdeslam, was finally captured. The people of Molenbeek kept him hidden from police for that long.

Here?s the thing:?when I was in Molenbeek, I literally bumped into Mayor Schepmans in the street. She approached me and told me not to sit on the benches because they were filthy.

So I asked her a simple question: why didn?t you do anything?

After all, she knew.

A month before the Paris attack, Mayor Schepmans was given a list of jihadists plotting in Molenbeek.

And Salah Abdeslam?s name was on the list.

I asked her why she didn?t have police arrest him.

And she told me:?it wasn?t her job.

She actually said that. And she said it again and again. Here, watch the interview for yourself:

Well, that video went viral. And so did my other videos from Molenbeek ? including when I made a list of all 22 mosques in town; and when I put on a burka, to ?fit in? with the submissive women there.[…]

Well, Mayor Schepmans watched my videos.

And she has decided to finally do something about the problem of the jihadis in her town.

She?s launching a public prosecution.

But she?s not prosecuting any terrorists. That?s not her job, remember.

No: she?s suing me.

For my reports ? including for my interview with her!

To her, my journalism is a bigger threat than terrorists using her town as a base camp.

[…] Mayor Schepmans says she is going to sue me on behalf of all of Molenbeek, claiming I have ?defamed? their reputation.

Really? Because If?you are known as The Jihadi Capital of Europe?I think it?s impossible for your reputation to sink any lower than it is. They did that all by themselves ? and because of a mayor who says it?s just not her job to arrest terrorists.[…] End of quote.

There used to be a time when media could avoid lawsuits by ensuring that news reports were fact-checked?and accurate but these days no media organisation is safe from legal jihad. Our Western legal system allows people with money to use the court system to harass journalists for reporting on provable facts because they literally consider the truth to be defamatory at best and hate speech at worst. The Mayor of Molenbeek is suing Katie Hopkins because she feels that revealing the facts harms her reputation and the reputation of the city.

Katie Hopkins is confident that she can win this case and has stated that her journalism was fair and accurate. The mayor embarrassed herself by admitting on camera that?she had a list with Salah Abdeslam?s name on it and did nothing about it.

The lawsuit’s purpose is to harass Hopkins and to waste her time and money but most importantly “to warn other journalists not to ask embarrassing questions about Islam, open borders or terrorism.”