Jew remark contested

Press, 1 March 1984, Page 8

Jew remark contested

PA Wellington For a prospective political candidate a proposition that he despised Jews could be of marked significance, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday. Counsel, Mr Michael Camp, was making submissions on behalf of Mr Bob Jones, who claims $250,000 damages against the Minister of Trade ud Industry, Mr Templeton, for alleged defamation.

Mr Camp said that Mr Jones in his statement of claim had complained only in respect of u allegation that he (Jones) despised Jews.

He could say that the other allegations were so extreme as to be nonsense and that he was not going to be dragged into “some three-ring circus” in talking about comments on the dust jackets of books 10 years ago in relation to some particular individual topic. J

Earlier, Mr Desmond Dalgety, counsel for Mr Templeton, had said three matters were before the court The first was the order made by Mr Justice Ongley striking out certain particulars of justification. The second was an appeal against the order made by Mr Justice Ongley striking out the defence of fair comment

Mr Dalgety said that Mr Justice Ongley had also rejected a motion by Mr Camp that the defence of qualified privilege be struck out, and Mr Camp had cross-appealed. Decision was reserved by the Court

Mr Dalgety said that on the teleivion programme, “Eye Witness News,” in Mich, 1983, extracts from Mr Templeton’s speech and reports of it were given: “He wants us to take him seriously. Wealth is not a basis for that It depends on the character of the man

and his record. Mr Jones is a man who despises, many people .. . bureaucrats, civil servants, politicians, women, Jews, and professionals. Doesn’t it sound familiar? The politics of hatred,” the speech report said.

Mr Camp said that, contrary to Mr Templeton’s points of appeal, Mr Jones had not pleaded that he would ignore the context in which the words “Jones despises Jews” appeared. Mr Jones had pleaded that for these proceedings he would ignore all other allegations. The result of that pleading should be to preclude Mr Templeton justifying other matters that were not complained of.

Mr Justice Cooke asked Mr Camp whether, if the Court had to approach the matter as to the best rule of law in the situation, he could . indicate why Mr Jones Mould be allowed to limit Jfmself as he had as a

matter of fairness. Mr Camp said that if Mr Jones’s view was, as he had written, that most of the allegations were so extreme as to be laughable, he certainly did not intend to dignify where there were distinct charges for him to say, “That is the one that from the information I get is damaging my position as a political candidate.” It was clear from the passage in Mr Templeton’s speech that there was a string of charges where it was said Mr Jones despised various categories. Each of those categories was a distinct charge. There were probably also other charges, in that Mr Templeton had contended that the article asserted Mr Jones was unfit for public office. It might well also be that the passage, “Doesn’t it sound familiar, the politics of hatred?” could be a separate charge, Mr ®mp said.

“However, the plaintiff is entitled to choose his ground and had chosen his ground in the terms expressed by Mr Justice Ongley,” Mr Camp said. “The plaintiff is stuck with that as the defendant is. Otherwise any list would mean that a plaintiff would have to sue on all of the lists however trivial or absurd he considered some of its items to be.”

Mr Camp said that in terms of the judgment of the High Court, the Jews proposition could be separate from the other allegations.

Any item on the list was probably severable. “It is the only race mentioned,” Mr Camp said. “It is a race in relation to whom political oppression has been historically rife. In respect of a prospective political candidate a proposition that he despises Jews could be of marked significance.”