The Portuguese Constitution

This is a very popular justification for Amaral's book. He is merely defending his rights under the Portuguese constitution, and he is being gagged.
_____________________________

In fact this appears at the top of morais blog:

1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

______________________________

That is OK so far as it goes.

Morais likes paragraphs 1 and 2. And so does Amaral. They are oft quoted.

But are not, it seems, so keen on Paragraphs 3 and 4, which set the limits and the system for dealing with infringements of those limits.

But maybe it would be interesting to read the full text:

Article 37 Freedom of Expression and Information
(1) Everyone has the right to express and make known his or her thoughts freely by words, images, or any other means, and also the right to inform, obtain information, and be informed without hindrance or discrimination.
(2) The exercise of these rights may not be prevented or restricted by any type or form of censorship.
(3) Offences committed in the exercise of these rights are punishable under the general principles of criminal law, the courts of law having jurisdiction to try them.
(4) The right of reply and rectification and the right to compensation for losses suffered are equally and effectively secured to all natural and artificial persons.

This in itself is quite instructive: Freedom of expression but responsibilities attach.

For the avoidance of doubt, here is the version that she is using in Portuguese:

Artigo 37.º
Liberdade de expressão e informação

1. Todos têm o direito de exprimir e divulgar livremente o seu pensamento pela palavra, pela imagem ou por qualquer outro meio, bem como o direito de informar, de se informar e de ser informados, sem impedimentos nem discriminações.

2. O exercício destes direitos não pode ser impedido ou limitado por qualquer tipo ou forma de censura.

3. As infracções cometidas no exercício destes direitos ficam submetidas aos princípios gerais de direito criminal ou do ilícito de mera ordenação social, sendo a sua apreciação respectivamente da competência dos tribunais judiciais ou de entidade administrativa independente, nos termos da lei.

4. A todas as pessoas, singulares ou colectivas, é assegurado, em condições de igualdade e eficácia, o direito de resposta e de rectificação, bem como o direito a indemnização pelos danos sofridos.


___________________________________

Having grasped that, we can then move on to article 26:

Article 26 Other Personal Rights
(1) Everyone's right to his or her personal identity, civil capacity, citizenship, good name and reputation, image, the right to speak out, and the right to the protection of the intimacy of his or her private and family life is recognized.
(2) The law establishes effective safeguards against the abusive use, or any use that is contrary to human dignity, of information concerning persons and families.
(3) A person may be deprived of citizenship or subjected to restrictions on his or her civil capacity only in cases and under conditions laid down by law, and never on political grounds.

paragraphs 1 and 2 are the relevant ones here. Obviously of some use if senor amaral is inconvenienced but mysteriously do not seem to apply to the McCanns or other members of the tapas 9.

Inteesting how things can be twisted. And how much better to go to the original source. Unless you are a mushroom, that is.

Thank you for posting that, Sans-Souci. In NO democratic country does the right to free speech include the right to defame an individual or a group - or the right to restrict access to news which doesn't reflect your particular view point.

The McCanns dont seem to be referring to Amaral's 'lies' anymore do they, instead they say that he is 'distorting the truth'. The McCanns have no choice but to accept that what Amaral has written is the truth but, to support their defamation case, they are obliged to say that he has 'distorted' it.

The investigator and former Judiciária coordinator in Maddie’s disappearance speaks about his book “The English Gag”. Controversial

by Pedro Sales Dias

The investigator and former PJ coordinator in the case of the disappearance of Maddie presents a new book in which he says he is silenced by the “English gag”. In an interview to I, he speaks about the [revolution of the] 25th of April [1974] and reveals that his future passes through the practise of law, and speaks about the recently published book: “The English Gag”.

You have already mentioned that you never expected to write this book. What are the reasons for that feeling?

On the 25th of April [1974], I was 14 years old. As a matter of fact, I thought that 35 years after the 25th of April [revolution which reinstated democracy in Portugal] there would be no acts of censorship or limitations on freedom of expression. People may say that I was somewhat distracted or that I was a bit naïve, but I thought those things had already been overcome and none of that would return to this country. It seems that it did, with my case.

Did you feel censored and gagged when “Maddie – The Truth of the Lie” was taken off the Market (in September), after having been targeted with an injunction that was presented by the McCann family?

I felt censored and gagged, hence the title of book. It is a gag which is English because it is an English couple that demands the gag. In fact, being told to shut up while we believe we are offering a technical and founded opinion, we are using freedom of expression in a responsible manner, then it it very hard for us to accept being told to shut up and to remain silent. I have respected the injunction until the day that I have to violate it in my own defence. So far it has not been necessary, but if it becomes so, I will violate the injunction.

When and why will it be necessary?

It will be necessary… We are presently experiencing a campaign from the injunction’s plaintiffs whose purpose it is to discredit me. By discrediting, they are destroying not only me, but also my family. This has been growing. Since September, well orchestrated and well planned news have been coming out, which rummage through my private life. We are going to act against those who make propaganda out of less positive things in life, like my debts. I have gone on holidays with my three daughters, with debts. When I returned, I brought my daughters and also my debts. We all have debts. There is an official campaign, and a parallel one. Some day, we will try to understand whether or not they are connected. It puts my reputation at stake, whether or not I am a good father, a good husband, and the debts. It is necessary to put this man’s reputation at stake, and to silence him… I do not accept that, and if necessary, I will violate the injunction.

What can we expect from this book, some news, and the clarification of the truth?

A while ago, I said that it is a protest against this injunction. A condensed travel – it is small, easily read – about these problems of freedom of expression. I think it serves as a support and clarification document, even for the young people who did not live that period, and can only imagine it… At this moment, specific situations are being experienced and I think that the youth has an historical opportunity to understand how things were in practical terms, how things were. They are not exactly like that time, but they become very similar. To silence people, to remove books from the market, or to apprehend books, to seize their assets, those are things from way back when, before the 25th of April [1974]. It is happening to me in that way, they want to asphyxiate me financially.

Is there anything new in the book?

I don’t have to write about cases all of the time. And in this case, I even cannot. If I could, I would have written. There was a discussion among the lawyers who helped me to perfect the book, whether or not I should speak about the private detectives’ work, about the abduction theory and to clarify that they did a disastrous job. Those gentlemen accuse me of being guilty of all evil, of not having found the missing child. They forget about the activity that they have done so far – I am not speaking about their responsibility in anything – and the detectives’ work.

The thesis about Maddie’s disappearance if not merely a thesis, it’s an investigation that is based on facts…

I cannot speak about that. I can tell you that what is in the book is in the process, that is to say, it reports about an investigation that is also supported by the process itself. One thing is the other. And it is only the work from May until October, while I led the investigation. Then, the work continued. We have already presented documental and witness evidence that what is in the process, is in the book. It is factual. There is no defamation. What is in there, is a technical and founded opinion about reports of what happened there…

The process is public…

But it should have been censored. If they say that this book, which is based on the process, is defaming, then the process also defames. Why don’t they censor the process itself? It is in circulation… It has been distributed to all journalists.

What is the truth about the Maddie case?

At the moment, I am forbidden from speaking about truths and lies, therefore I have to keep silent about that. I cannot even share my thoughts, as foreseen in the injunction. Now look at what things have come to…

The parents of Madeleine, who disappeared on the 3rd of May 2007, in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, consider that the thesis that Gonçalo Amaral defends in the book, that both are involved in their daughter’s disappearance, is unsustainable…

I can tell you that I have not seen written anywhere, anything that rebuts what is written in the book. They say that the book defames, but nobody picks up any part of the book to say what is a lie and what is not in the process. That is the major issue. Nobody questioned what is in the book, page by page. Nobody says why it is defamatory. Justice is performed in silence when it runs its normal course. I was already silent, I was writing another book about the Police. When this happened, I had to put it aside to give a public reply.

As a former Polícia Judiciária coordinator, in one of the most recent and most media-exposed investigation cases in Portugal, what is the priority in the scale of juridical values, for you: an injunction that is imposed by an English couple, or the right to freedom of expression?

There are limits. There is a hierarchy of values. The use of responsible freedom of expression will always be above private life itself. If you look at the Republic’s Constitution, freedom of expression is worth more.

What will you do in the future?

I will start my practise in law… I am going to be a lawyer…



source: I, 16.12.2009

Autumn wrote:The McCanns dont seem to be referring to Amaral's 'lies' anymore do they, instead they say that he is 'distorting the truth'. The McCanns have no choice but to accept that what Amaral has written is the truth but, to support their defamation case, they are obliged to say that he has 'distorted' it.

The '10 Reasons' leaflet was described on 14 August this year by Dr Gerald McCann as 'despicable lies'.

They are softening

What did Carter-Ruck and Kirwans say about it Mr Bennett? Similar sentiments as I recall and some mention of your house and life savings?

Bea_Reasonable wrote:What did Carter-Ruck and Kirwans say about it Mr Bennett? Similar sentiments as I recall and some mention of your house and life savings?

Carter-Ruck never called it 'despicable lies'.

Yes, to defend it and '60 Reasons' might have resulted in personal financial ruin.

The unfairness of a person analysing e.g. a claim of abduction and then being forced to withdraw his analysis because of overwhelming financial power on the other side is major reason why there is currently a wholesale review of this country's 'draconian' libel laws which, for certain, will result in greater freedom of speech when the law is changed:

FYI:

http://www.topnews.co.uk/2222-uk-government-review-libel-law

Tony Bennett wrote:

Bea_Reasonable wrote:What did Carter-Ruck and Kirwans say about it Mr Bennett? Similar sentiments as I recall and some mention of your house and life savings?

Carter-Ruck never called it 'despicable lies'.

Yes, to defend it and '60 Reasons' might have resulted in personal financial ruin.

The unfairness of a person analysing e.g. a claim of abduction and then being forced to withdraw his analysis because of overwhelming financial power on the other side is major reason why there is currently a wholesale review of this country's 'draconian' libel laws which, for certain, will result in greater freedom of speech when the law is changed:

FYI:


http://www.topnews.co.uk/2222-uk-government-review-libel-law

But it was libel, wasn't it? Kirwan's told you so. Fairness, telling lies about the parents of a missing child? Others told you long before Kirwans did that it was wrong.

Have to say, Mr Amaral looked much more confident than the McCanns in Portugal and he has some impressive witnesses lined up including someone from Scotland Yard, I believe

So he looked more confident than the parents of a missing child who have been going through a kind of hell that cannot be described for the past two and a half years, wow. Impressive. Most people on the planet would look more confident than Kate and Gerry McCann.

Autumn wrote:Have to say, Mr Amaral looked much more confident than the McCanns in Portugal and he has some impressive witnesses lined up including someone from Scotland Yard, I believe

Maybe his confidence came from the fact that he knew that the case would not start that day?

tyra wrote:So he looked more confident than the parents of a missing child who have been going through a kind of hell that cannot be described for the past two and a half years, wow. Impressive. Most people on the planet would look more confident than Kate and Gerry McCann.

Truth will out in the end. Spare a moment to consider the hell that Madeleine has been put through as a result of the McCanns' neglect.

Autumn wrote:

tyra wrote:So he looked more confident than the parents of a missing child who have been going through a kind of hell that cannot be described for the past two and a half years, wow. Impressive. Most people on the planet would look more confident than Kate and Gerry McCann.

Truth will out in the end. Spare a moment to consider the hell that Madeleine has been put through as a result of the McCanns' neglect.

It's not a competition autumn, it's a horrific situation for all involved and if it had come about even partly as a result of anything her parents did then how much more awful a situation, how much more pain.

Autumn wrote:

tyra wrote:So he looked more confident than the parents of a missing child who have been going through a kind of hell that cannot be described for the past two and a half years, wow. Impressive. Most people on the planet would look more confident than Kate and Gerry McCann.

Truth will out in the end. Spare a moment to consider the hell that Madeleine has been put through as a result of the McCanns' neglect.

IF that truth is that you and your fellows have tortured the parents of an abducted child for 2 years, written leaflets and even turned up at their neighbours houses suggesting they killed their own child, what then for you, Autumn? A shrug of the shoulders and a "better luck next time" ? The old "They neglected her" mantra (again)? An apology?

tyra wrote:

Autumn wrote:

tyra wrote:So he looked more confident than the parents of a missing child who have been going through a kind of hell that cannot be described for the past two and a half years, wow. Impressive. Most people on the planet would look more confident than Kate and Gerry McCann.

Truth will out in the end. Spare a moment to consider the hell that Madeleine has been put through as a result of the McCanns' neglect.

It's not a competition autumn, it's a horrific situation for all involved and if it had come about even partly as a result of anything her parents did then how much more awful a situation, how much more pain.

Fact is, if you believe that Madeleine was abducted then you have to accept that is was as a direct result of her parents neglect. I agree, it is horrific.

Neglect mantra then. Not what I'd feel had I tortured the parents of a missing child, but predictable.

Autumn wrote:

tyra wrote:

Autumn wrote:

tyra wrote:So he looked more confident than the parents of a missing child who have been going through a kind of hell that cannot be described for the past two and a half years, wow. Impressive. Most people on the planet would look more confident than Kate and Gerry McCann.

Truth will out in the end. Spare a moment to consider the hell that Madeleine has been put through as a result of the McCanns' neglect.

It's not a competition autumn, it's a horrific situation for all involved and if it had come about even partly as a result of anything her parents did then how much more awful a situation, how much more pain.

Fact is, if you believe that Madeleine was abducted then you have to accept that is was as a direct result of her parents neglect. I agree, it is horrific.

Oh dear, is that really how you think, if you are mown down by a drunk driver it's your fault for having been there ready to actively make yourself a victim. No, sorry that's not how common sense or the law works, if Madeleine was abducted, as seems most likely then it was 100% the result of the abductor having illegally entered her bedroom and snatching her, no if's, no buts, no need to desperately try and blame those left behind, just the stark depressing truth.

Bea_Reasonable wrote:Neglect mantra then. Not what I'd feel had I tortured the parents of a missing child, but predictable.

It's just not only the neglect though. I sometimes think to myself perhaps they didn't have anything to do with any of it, and know nothing. I then start feeling a horrible person for thinking these thoughts. But then, I think about the photos of them holding up the t-shirt, and coming out of the church with big grins. I think of why on earth didn't they go back for the reconstruction. If it didn't help, well so what, at least they would have tried, and know they had done everything to help look for Madeleine. I think why didn't KM answer those 48 questions, and the last question she did answer sent a shiver up my spine.

I know you will say different people deal with things differently, but there just seems no effort into helping the situation. GM only returned to Portugal earlier this year to deal with the injunction about the book, and KM goes back 30 months later, not to help find her daughter, but to sue Mr. Amaral!!

People would have a lot more sympathy if some of these things were adressed, and it wasn't always about them and suing people. imo

4 months of making themselves available to answer everything and anything and they only stopped when it became apparent that the police had stopped searching for their little girl.

Smiling holding up a t-shirt with their little girls image on it because they were so grateful that the head of the rugby association was wanting to help and have all the players wear the t-shirts during their warm up that would be shown all over the world and that might help find their child.

A reconstruction would not have had the perpetrator there and instead was designed to accuse them, and again this happened once it was clear they had stopped looking for their little girl.

they were smiling when they came out of the church because something had happened that made the entire crowd burst into smiles, I wasn't there so I don't know what it was but the series of images shows the crowd all reacting in the same way.

just a btw

tyra wrote:4 months of making themselves available to answer everything and anything and they only stopped when it became apparent that the police had stopped searching for their little girl.

Smiling holding up a t-shirt with their little girls image on it because they were so grateful that the head of the rugby association was wanting to help and have all the players wear the t-shirts during their warm up that would be shown all over the world and that might help find their child.

A reconstruction would not have had the perpetrator there and instead was designed to accuse them, and again this happened once it was clear they had stopped looking for their little girl.

tyra,

surely you can't believe what you have just said. How many crimewatch reconstructions have had the perpatrator there. For heaaven's sake, of course it would have helped with timelines, etc., to see in real life who was where and when, and how a perpetrator could have done this. If none of them are guilty, what had they to fear??

As for the smiling holding up the t-shirt. Grateful, yes, grinning like cheshire cats er no, that doesn't make them grateful does it. Being grateful means thanking the people doesn't it?? A solemn look would have been more respectful don't you think?

candyfloss wrote:

tyra wrote:4 months of making themselves available to answer everything and anything and they only stopped when it became apparent that the police had stopped searching for their little girl.

Smiling holding up a t-shirt with their little girls image on it because they were so grateful that the head of the rugby association was wanting to help and have all the players wear the t-shirts during their warm up that would be shown all over the world and that might help find their child.

A reconstruction would not have had the perpetrator there and instead was designed to accuse them, and again this happened once it was clear they had stopped looking for their little girl.

tyra,

surely you can't believe what you have just said. How many crimewatch reconstructions have had the perpatrator there. For heaaven's sake, of course it would have helped with timelines, etc., to see in real life who was where and when, and how a perpetrator could have done this. If none of them are guilty, what had they to fear??

As for the smiling holding up the t-shirt. Grateful, yes, grinning like cheshire cats er no, that doesn't make them grateful does it. Being grateful means thanking the people doesn't it?? A solemn look would have been more respectful don't you think?

Not the best argument there, they actually wanted a crimewatch style reconstruction but the police did not. The police would have learned nothing from acting out the clear timelines they already had but it might have prompted someone who might have seen something but didn't realise it until they saw it but nope, that's wasn't allowed.

The solemn look like the 'tabloid sad face' whenever someone is a victim of something a crime, an inept local government official, the person who lost the winning lottery ticket, so staged don't you think, and not how real people react at all, essentially a bit of a cliche with the local press photographer, come on love, the council haven't emptied your bins in a month because a crisp wrapper could be seen sticking out from under the lid, look sad!

Would that be more believable to you?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Autumn wrote:The McCanns dont seem to be referring to Amaral's 'lies' anymore do they, instead they say that he is 'distorting the truth'. The McCanns have no choice but to accept that what Amaral has written is the truth but, to support their defamation case, they are obliged to say that he has 'distorted' it.

The '10 Reasons' leaflet was described on 14 August this year by Dr Gerald McCann as 'despicable lies'.

They are softening

Before you know you will be on their Christmas card list

When he was interviewed the other day Gerry McCann spoke of distortions of the truth, lies, fabrications and slander. I'd be interested to know which parts of the book these accusations are aimed at. And talking of distortions of the truth. Was the shutter jemmied or not.

I'd suggest that as the book contradicts the prosecuters final report that it is self explanatory that the thing is full of lies, unless you are suggesting the portuguese police, the forensic teams and the prosecuter are all lying and only poor ickle mr amaral is telling the truth

Assuming that the shutter was forced is a fairly straightforward mistake to make and one that I'd wager the majority of people in that situation might make, writing a book slandering the family of a missing child based on no evidence and whole lot of rumour, innuedo and made up stuff is a little more than a wrong assumption, that's hardcore impossible to explain away.

I would have thought it was up to the police to decide what would be helpful in their investigation. Not the Arguidos. Which they were at the time of the request.

They were also the victims which did seem to rather complicate matters, evidently there needs to be protocols put in place to deal with this sort of situation though. I'm sure there are now.

victims of what exactly? And protocol put in place. A personal spin doctor?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Bea_Reasonable wrote:What did Carter-Ruck and Kirwans say about it Mr Bennett? Similar sentiments as I recall and some mention of your house and life savings?

Carter-Ruck never called it 'despicable lies'.

Yes, to defend it and '60 Reasons' might have resulted in personal financial ruin.

The unfairness of a person analysing e.g. a claim of abduction and then being forced to withdraw his analysis because of overwhelming financial power on the other side is major reason why there is currently a wholesale review of this country's 'draconian' libel laws which, for certain, will result in greater freedom of speech when the law is changed:

FYI:

http://www.topnews.co.uk/2222-uk-government-review-libel-law

“…you recently chose to plumb new depths by posting leaflets to residents of the village in which our clients live with their children”. Is the response Carter Ruck chose to use, feel free to correct this if its wrong.

Oh look! Someone else with just 1 post registered to have a go at TB.