With a harsh economic recession continuing to bite, with Westminster politics remaining in the doldrums and with a global climate change summit fast approaching, legal action taken against a science writer may be far down your priority list as party conference season approaches. And yet, the British Chiropractic Association’s attempts to silence Simon Singh’s critical comments reveal fundamental flaws in Britain’s libel law, and threaten to undermine the freedom of expression that insulates us from the very worst consequences of public and private sector failures.
It is in this context that I invite all Lib Dem Voice readers to attend a fringe event I’ve organised at this year’s conference. The event is entitled Defending free speech – keep libel laws out of science, and will take place in the Marriott Highcliff Hotel’s Blandford Syndicate room 3 at 13.00.
We will hear an illustrious panel of speakers discussing how legal threats are being used to suppress scientific debate, and how Britain’s libel laws must be reformed:
Best-selling science writer Simon Singh will share with us his experience of being sued for libel following an article in The Guardian criticising the chiropractic profession for promoting therapies that have no evidence for efficacy; author of Bad Science and the badscience.net blog Ben Goldacre will discuss how a legal chill is being cast over much of the critical commentary of unscientific practice in place of constructive debate; journalist and author Nick Cohen will discuss the wider absurdities of British libel law and its implications for many outside the world of science; and Liberal Democrat shadow science minister Evan Harris MP will argue that Parliament should consider fairer legislation to permit free discussion and debate. Síle Lane of the charity Sense about Science will introduce the speakers and their role in the charity’s campaign, Keep the Libel Laws out of Science. Please feel free to email me at the address below* for a pdf copy of an event flyer that recaps the details.
This event promises to promote not only Simon’s defence against legal action, but to highlight just how flawed Britain’s libel laws and their interpretations can be, and as such forms part of the continuing struggle to defend civil liberties from erosion.
Spaces at the event will be strictly limited (frankly due to constraints on cost!) and on a first-come-first-seated basis, so I’d suggest those who are interested come along as early as possible, and that if you’re unable to attend to watch this space (and my blog at teekblog.blogspot.com) for a (necessarily crude) audio and video recording of the event, technical mishaps permitting.
In summary I call on those who wish to protect the scrutiny of baseless claims in any sphere; those who see the need for a balance between protecting individuals from defamation and protecting our right to dissenting opinion without fear of prosecution; indeed anyone who is interested in promoting freedom of speech to attend the event or to access the recordings thereof and get involved in the campaign to defend free speech from being suppressed by way of libel action.
In addition to the fringe meeting, I have drafted an amendment to the excellent conference motion F15, Standing up for civil liberties. The motion ends with reiterating the salient demands laid down in Chris Huhne’s Freedom Bill published earlier this year. The amendment is designed to highlight the need for libel law reform, particularly in the context of scientific debate, as Simon’s case emphasises. The text reads as follows:
At line 53, insert the following:
17. A review of Britain’s libel laws in order to safeguard the free exchange of information and ideas and, in particular, to promote the unhampered dissemination of evidence-based science that relates to our well-being and that of the planet.
I hope that the Conference organisers will accept the amendment for debate – the motion is due to be debated by conference in the session that immediately follows the aforementioned fringe event so it would be apt to follow the debate with Simon, Ben, Nick and Evan with an endorsement for libel law reform and free debate from Conference itself.
If you are a Lib Dem member and wish to support the motion (we need at least 10 signatories), again please email me at the address below* for more details – the only issue here is that the submission deadline is noon on September 8th!
I hope this gives you a flavour of how critical an issue libel law reform is, not only to ensure free discussion of scientific principles but also in order to promote political discourse; at a time when failures of both the government and the private sector have created a perfect storm in the political economy, it is vital that we retain the freedom to hold those in power to account.
*For further details on the fringe event and on the motion amendment please email prateekdotbuchatgmaildotcom (replacing the dot with . and the at with @)
Prateek Buch is a Liberal Democrat member in Epping Forest, and blogs at teekblog.blogspot.com.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Visiting St Mary's Church fair
What Popper did and didn't say about the paradox of intolerance
It is time to act on the black mould threat in Ludlow
A trio of Liberal Democrat selections in Sheffield
Compare and contrast
Christmas With The Stars #dundeewestend
Caron Lindsay
John Nicholson
Roland
Mark Valladares
28 Comments
I’d agree with the first half of that amendment but not the second which effectively creates a “Some animals are more equal than others” type of protected speech.
Hywel – that’s not my intention, it’s just that the suppression of scientific criticism using the courts is particularly jarring given that science progresses precisely because of critical scrutiny. Also, rather than singling out science writing as a special case, the last part of the amendment is designed to be topical and relevant to the debate that takes place beforehand.
Legislation that reforms libel law to make it fairer will naturally make it easier to publish dissenting opinions related not only to science but to any field.
I’m with Hywel. It needs rewording, but the principle is one I am behind 100%
It needs to be borne in mind that interpretation through the courts is going to happen to this, so it needs to be as clear and unambiguous as possible.
Is it me, or does this article not mention what day this fringe is on?
Dave – it’s not you it’s me – Sunday 20th September
Jennie: agree that the wording needs to be careful, but at this stage wat we’re doing is formulating party policy not drafting Parliamentary legislation – courts will interpret bills that make it into law.
Point taken, but drafting is important at all stages ?(I only got 65% in it at BVC; I was much better at opinion writing)
@ Jennie – no comment necessary there I feel 🙂
A bit of a classic bit of internery in that you have people who fundamentally agree arguing about a minor point of detail.
Having party policy that cannot be made into effective laws because it is too vague isn’t really such a good idea. If we go down that route we could just pass a catch-all policy, “Conference believes that things would be much better if only everyone would be nice all the time” 🙂
“courts will interpret bills that make it into law.”
Yes but passing legislation that reads, “we know this is a bit vague but the Law Lords will sort it all out in the end” is a recipe for unintended consequences as they wrestle with (possibly contradictory) secondary sources for statutory interpretation. Get it wrong and you give the scientologists free rein to defame at will…..
However, having had a brief look at the Simon Singh case it seems that the statement in question is at least in part one about the conduct of the British Chiropractic Council rather than one of fundamental scientific truth. I don’t see how you frame a set of libel laws which would exclude such a statement without allowing people to defame at will.
One issue to look at in libel law reform is the use of “no-win, no-fee” arrangements which have been very widely criticised for their “chilling effect”
… or I could just let Hywel do all the talking. What he said *points at Hywel’s comment*
Hywel: “Having party policy that cannot be made into effective laws because it is too vague isn’t really such a good idea.”
Not too sure how the amendment is vague, as this issue arose in this instance from a science writer being silenced when writing evidence-based commentary. Again I emphasise that the final wording of any legislation to spring from this would be passed over by experts in the field (of which I am not one). The accusation that the wording of party policy is not tight enough can be levelled at many aspects of many motions at conference, the point is that this wording was agreed after much deliberation and is still open to adjustment at the point at which we draft any legislation based on it.
As for you point about BCA’s conduct – imagine this. You buy a newspaper with a pound coin. you hand over the coin in good faith that it’s legal tender, but if it turns out to be a fake it would still be legitimate to call the coin ‘bogus’ whilst not implying malice on your part. If Simon is made to defend the use of the word bogus at trial, and he loses, there is a risk that almost all critical commentary will be stripped of adjectives such as bogus, fake, empty, etc.
Agree with the point about legal chill and no win no fee, the amendment calls for ‘a review of Britain’s libel law,’ which would certainly include this issue – as for the rest, I’m looking for the “let’s agree to disagree” emoticon 🙂
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the case against Singh turn on whether a word in his Guardian article implied knowingly lying or not? Which isn’t really much to do with science; if Singh could evidentially demonstrate that chiropractors did lie, then he would have nothing to worry about in his libel suit.
Don’t get me wrong; I have a great deal of sympathy for the anti-woo brigade, but I don’t think that this case really hinges on “suing against science” – it is more of a case of “suing against ambiguous wording”. It is unfortunate indeed that Singh got Justice Eady for the case, who, it seems (and I hope it isn’t libellous to say!) to stick quite strongly on the side of libel-suit-bringers. I suspect that many other judges would have taken Singh’s article as ‘comment’ and not considered that ‘hokum’, or whatever the word used was, implied dishonesty.
But then, one might say that ignoring evidence about the potentially fatally-damaging aspects of one’s profession (chiropractic has been known to kill, as Singh’s original article rightly claims), never mind ignoring more than a century of scientific advancement of the understanding of the human body, in order to keep practicing was a kind of dishonesty.
I hope he wins on appeal.
“Not too sure how the amendment is vague, as this issue arose in this instance from a science writer being silenced when writing evidence-based commentary.”
His statement about the BCA is not evidence-based commentary, it is a claim about the conduct of a professional regulatory body. Had he written, “Claims that chiropractic treatments can treat colic are clearly bogus” that defames no-one (well probably…). I don’t see how this case prevents scientific criticism as it is, in part at least, about a claim of the conduct of the BCA.
“You buy a newspaper with a pound coin. you hand over the coin in good faith that it’s legal tender, but if it turns out to be a fake it would still be legitimate to call the coin ‘bogus’ whilst not implying malice on your part.”
Different situation, I’m not implying that anyone has been engaged in dishonest/unprofessional conduct. If however I accused the shopkeeper of knowing passing fake coins then that would be prima facie defamatory. Several defences could arise (truth of the statement, possibly that it was made without malice and in the public interest).
If Simon Singh’s statement is true (ie proved on balance of probabilities) then that would be pretty much an absolute defence. But it must be true as regards the whole of the statement.
“I hope he wins on appeal.”
AIUI (which is on limited reading so I may be wrong) the situation is that Justice Eady has made a ruling on the meaning of the statement and in effect set the question that the jury must answer.
Simon Singh should not have accused those silly people of deliberately misleading their customers. Then he would not face libel charges. I was not of the belief that science progresses by accusing people of fraud.
@ sanbikinoraion: “Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the case against Singh turn on whether a word in his Guardian article implied knowingly lying or not? Which isn’t really much to do with science; if Singh could evidentially demonstrate that chiropractors did lie, then he would have nothing to worry about in his libel suit.”
This is the whole point. In saying that the treatments being promoted were ‘bogus,’ Simon was not saying that the chiropracters were lying, just that there is no evidence that the treatments being promoted are effective as per the claims made by practitioners. No accusations of lying were ever made, and yet Justice Eady’s pre-trial ruling assumes the opposite in a sense.
@ Hywel: The conduct of the BCA is being criticised on scientific grounds, with a body of reliable evidence to back it up. If commentary this robust is deemed libellous, where does that leave us? It is the ease with which special interest groups (lobbies, whatever you like to call them) can sue for libel instead of engaging in debate over the real issues (i.e whether chiropractic, specifically administered to treat infant colic or asthma, is effective) that is of concern.
@ Millian: “Simon Singh should not have accused those silly people of deliberately misleading their customers. Then he would not face libel charges.” This is the very sort of self-censorship we’re trying to avoid – if everyone goes around scared of being sued for writing anything remotely controversial how could we hold anyone to account publicly?
Are our laws on defamation really such that any charlatan, con-man or snake-oil salesman can use them to aggresively defend himself from criticism merely by claiming that he sincerely believed the claims he was making?
@ iainm: sadly, yes! not only that, they’re bad enough to allow characters of dubious hounour (to put it mildly) to sue for libel, claiming their reputations (such that they are) are being defamed. Read Nick Cohen’s stuff on just how Russain oligarchs, oil billionaires and the like are able to sue in British courts fully expecting (and more often than not getting) ill-deserved victories.
Just a question about the event: what day is it on? The blog post only gives a time and a place.
Sorry, I’ve seen it: Sunday 20 September!
@millian: Simon Singh did not accuse “those silly people of deliberately misleading their customers”. He has said time and time again that he only meant to say that they were deluded (which they are, quite frankly!). Only Mr (In)Justice Eady and the BCA think any different. And as iainm points out, surely the public have a right to be protected against snake-oil salesmen – if so, how can we stop people from accusing snake-oil salesmen of being snake-oil salesmen?
“He has said time and time again that he only meant to say that they were…
“I really meant to say….” isn’t a defence to defamation. Well certainly not a very good one though it might have some bearing on what the jury conclude the defamatory statement actually meant.
“surely the public have a right to be protected against snake-oil salesmen – if so, how can we stop people from accusing snake-oil salesmen of being snake-oil salesmen?”
The qualified privilege defence would cover such a situation – and I’m sure that it will be argued when this comes to trial.
Re. Hywel: ‘“I really meant to say….” isn’t a defence to defamation.’
Not unless he didn’t actually say what he is being accused of. Have you read the article? If you read it and the two sentences that the BCA object to you can decide for yourself whether you understand him to be accusing them of fraud as opposed to negligence. When I read it I understood him to be accusing them of negligence (ignoring the evidence) and delusion (believing that their fanciful treatments actually help people).
“Not unless he didn’t actually say what he is being accused of. Have you read the article?”
All I’ve read is an extract on Wikipedia which I assume is the section under dispute (it’s obviously difficult to reprint an article that is the subject of a libel action).
“When I read it I understood him to be accusing them of negligence (ignoring the evidence) and delusion (believing that their fanciful treatments actually help people).”
Accusations of negligence are just as defamatory as ones of fraud!
Re. Hywel: “Accusations of negligence are just as defamatory as ones of fraud!”
We are in an awful situation if it is illegal to say that someone has ignored relevant evidence. How can historical or scientific debate go on in these circumstances? In fact, how could public policy be criticised?
“We are in an awful situation if it is illegal to say that someone has ignored relevant evidence. How can historical or scientific debate go on in these circumstances? In fact, how could public policy be criticised?”
Exactly. Hywel, if accuations of negligence are deemed defamatory, how would medical negligence be reported? how would banker fraud be brought to light? how could we criticise the government for leading us into the Iraq war? Particularly when the accusation of negligence (if that is what Singh’s article is being seen as) are based on evidence that a practice is baseless and has no roots in fact, then these accusations must be allowed to be expressed to promote healthy debate.
It is for that reason that the defence of qualified privilege exists. It’s not a simple area of law but basically if you are acting genuinely in the public interest and without malice you will have a defence.
Truth is also an absolute (and the best!) defence.
The problem with the solution advocated above is how do you decide whether these things are the case without some sort of judicial procedure. If your talking about a system where someone’s reputation can be impugned in a way which leaves them with no possible* remedy then that’s not an idea I could support.
*That is a remedy in theory, there is an issue with defamation, as with other actions, about access to the courts. Having been libelled in fairly crude terms by another blogger I decided not to bother with legal action as it wasn’t worth the time and energy. One Lib Dem I know who successfully defended a libel action has not, AFAIK recovered their costs several years later.
DUE TO CONCERNS ABOUT THE WORDING OF THE AMENDMENT DETAILED IN THIS ARTICLE, RAISED BOTH ON THIS THREAD AND ELSEWHERE, A REVISED VERSION WAS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL.
THE SUBMITTED AMENDMENT READS AS FOLLOWS:
At line 53, insert the following:
17. The protection of freedom of expression, by reforming the libel
laws in England and Wales to ensure that a better balance is provided
between free speech, responsible journalism, scientific discourse and
the public interest on the one hand and powerful corporations, wealthy
individuals and vested interests on the other.
[Applicability needs amending]”
I have read several of the comments on your article and am concerned that many do not reflect the urgency of this amendment. The debate should be how do we get this action on the road, not about onanistic, hairsplitting amendments to your draft. Do these people understand the scientific method that is under attack here or are we regressing to medieval values of persecution?
Simon Sing is being sued by a large organization. But do you recall case of journalist who successfully sued the Daily Express for libel after reporting the Second World War? Libel laws must work both ways!