Gowns, wigs and spectacle: here’s why I took Laurence Fox to court – and why my victory matters
On Tuesday on Sky News, I was asked by Kay Burley if I had any sympathy for Laurence Fox. I nearly said yes. But that night, he was back to tweeting about my cock. What a difference 12 hours can make.
If you’re new to this saga, I’ve just won a libel battle against Fox in the high court. I sued him for calling me a paedophile in October 2020. He retaliated, countersuing me for calling him a racist (apparently Mr Free Speech Absolutist is not so keen on speech that he does not agree with). In a judgment released on Monday (more than three years later), he lost on both counts.
The judge recognised the serious reputational harm his allegations caused me, and simultaneously found that his counterclaim of my calling him a racist wasn’t defamatory. Fox pointed out that I didn’t call any witnesses, but I have to wonder how many people he wanted to back me up? There’s a lot out there.
Being in court with Fox was a surreal experience. The gowns, the wigs, the spectacle: it was almost like a drag show, except typically at drag shows we don’t have white men doing the haka or rapping a Tupac song, as Fox chose to do from the witness box. He didn’t exactly cover himself in glory as he was forced to defend tweets such as “fuck off back to Jamaica”, putting his kids in blackface and posting swastikas made out of pride flags on social media.
But the real eye-opener was a specific email he was forced to disclose. On the subject of his declining acting career (due to becoming an edgelord on Twitter, now known as X), he wrote: “I’m getting a huge wad of cash for this game, and I suppose it’s better to be hated and rich than hated and recently fired from Asda.”
Our barrister, following up, asked: “What is the game, Mr Fox? How much do you earn from [political party] Reclaim?” His reply: “£250,000 a year.” As Marina Hyde pointed out in her column on Tuesday, the uber-rich Brexit donor Jeremy Hosking funds the Reclaim party.
It’s been bizarre to watch Fox’s behaviour this week. He’s refused to admit defeat, threatened to appeal, and doubled down on the rhetoric that started this whole mess. It’s especially bizarre given that damages are yet to be awarded – but perhaps if we view it as political strategy, it starts to make
sense. I didn’t want to go to court, but Fox forced our hand by not only refusing to apologise, but with his ultimately failed countersuit (hole: dug).
Perhaps we gave him and any financial backers exactly what they wanted: publicity, outrage and, for some, damage to the reputation of our legal system. Regardless, I needed to see it through – I had to clear my name, and there must be consequences for defamation.
While I’m relieved to have won in court, it’s hard to see any real-world implications, at least in the short term. This week, I’ve had some of the worst abuse I’ve experienced – from the comments section on my Sky News clip, to new YouTube attack videos, to Fox himself tweeting about me last night.
On the positive, it has been truly amazing to see how meaningful this victory is for so many others. Throughout this whole process, I internalised a lot of the stress and pressure – it felt like it was just about me and my co-claimant Simon Blake, and Nicola Thorp, who was defendant to his claim. I’m watching the whole queer community breathe a sigh of relief and I realise a lot of others were holding that stress as well.
The outpouring of support (and memes) shows me that this is a victory for all of us. There are consequences for defamatory language and, while it might not stop the anonymous social media accounts, I hope our victory serves as a warning to our increasingly rightwing politicians, to the GB News pundits, and to the nasty bluetick accounts on X that seem to be profiting from this kind of discord.
Returning to the question of sympathy, and whether I have any for Fox – sorry, I’m still fresh out.
Crystal is a drag performer, DJ and TV host
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.