01 Jun 09 | Uncategorized
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith reportedly received a legal letter from lawyers representing US radio host Michael Savage this morning. Savage claims to have been libelled by Smith when his name appeared on a list of undesirables barred from entering Britain on the grounds of fostering extremism and threatening community cohesion. Smith has said she will defend herself, which could lead to a rather interesting court case.
Perhaps the most interesting question here will be that of definitions: as we’ve seen with the Simon Singh case, meaning is both absolute and in the eye of the beholder, in this case, the judge. So how will Justice Eady (if it be he) definine ‘extremism’? And will the Home Office lawyers be forced to come up with their own definition? If they do, will we then know what the official Home Office definition is?
Also of interest is the possibility that in any court proceedings, the Home Office may have to reveal the exact criteria and mechanisms for banning someone from the UK.
Finally, will this bizarre case help the government realise both how counterproductive the banned list is, and how badly in need of reform our defamation laws are?
19 May 09 | Uncategorized
Justice Secretary Jack Straw gave evidence to the select committee on libel and privacy this morning. And there are encouraging signs of a will for reform — though not in all the areas that matter. He is clearly convinced that costs — particularly conditional fee agreements — need tackling and told the committee, “I do believe there is a necessity actively to look at amending the law in advance of [Lord Justice] Jackson’s review.” Lord Justice Jackson, who is conducting a review of civil litigation costs, had just told the select committee minutes beforehand that he wanted there to be an “holistic” approach to reform, rather than anything “piecemeal”. So this is likely to be exactly what he fears. And one worries that the secretary of state’s proposals may in fact undercut Lord Justice Jackson’s comprehensive review — which may come up with radical reform.
Jack Straw also said that he would be looking at defamation online and ISPs’ liability — a consultation will be launched before the summer recess. However, when asked about libel tourism, the secretary of state said that he had not been convinced that there was a significant problem. The committee members were clearly surprised. They pointed out that the United States was legislating to protect its citizens from our libel laws and that cases were being heard in our courts where the plaintiffs had the flimsiest connections. However, Jack Straw repeated that he hadn’t yet been presented with the evidence to convince him. So it’s good news and bad news. The message has finally got through that costs are a significant chilling effect on free speech — and that’s something to celebrate. But it’s puzzling that libel tourism has made such little impact on Straw when it has been the cause of international condemnation — not only from politicians in the US but from the UN Human Rights Committee. Let’s hope that the select committee has got the evidence to convince him.
19 May 09 | Uncategorized
A spectre is haunting London, and it is the spectre of unreason. The doubters have huddled underground in a crowded tavern, purveying dangerous ideas and thoughts. They are hardy souls, men and women, nursing their drinks, plotting to overthrow blind faith, within yards of the courts of justice where a bewigged man interprets the Queen’s edict in a way so narrow as to protect the fair name of good people and evil, silencing the ones who dare to speak truth to power, chilling those who have not yet thought subversive thoughts. A hushed silence prevails, clamping down reason and argument. The rest is silence.
Except that we are in the London of the 21st century, the global city, and the tavern is a pub in central London, where the courageous journalist and author, Simon Singh and his supporters are debating what to do next, after Mr Justice Eady’s reading in the case filed against him by the British Chiropractors’ Association (BCA), allowing the association to proceed in its libel claim against Singh.
Singh wrote an article over a year ago in the Guardian, in which he challenged the BCA’s promotion of chiropractic treatment for asthma and ear infections among children. The chiropractors decided to sue. He had two options –– to apologise and give in, or to fight. He chose to fight.
Singh is a distinguished science writer. His books include Fermat’s Last Theorem, The Code Book, and appropriately enough, Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. Science rests on testing hypotheses; claims are challenged; and if those challenged claims are not refuted, the theory falls. If not, we learn new ways of understanding our world. Instead of challenging Singh with arguments, the British Chiropractic Association went to court, as if courts can determine the effectiveness of treatments, or the harms they pose.
As the meeting organised by blogger Jack of Kent and hosted by the Skeptics in London revealed, the matter got more complicated when Mr Justice Eady made an “astonishing and illiberal” ruling, defining the meaning that should be given to the passage the chiropractors found offensive. Singh had described claims made for chiropracti as “bogus”. He ruled that even if what Singh had written was an opinion piece in his interpretation it was a statement of fact. And by using that word which he explained, meant “deliberate and targeted dishonesty,” Singh was asserting that the association was being dishonest.
That’s not what Singh was getting at. But that’s how the judge interpreted it, leaving Singh three options: to go to trial, to settle or to appeal. Last night, Singh was unable to declare what he would do, but his instinct – and the overwhelming view in the pub – was that he should appeal. And he was not alone.
The scientific skeptic James Randi called for support for the quest for justice, saying the case has the chilling effect on the ability to question claims of anyone, including pseudoscientists. Dave Morris, the co-defendant in the famous McLibel trial said in a message read, that the law must be opposed because it unfairly protects against fair criticism.
Ben Goldacre, who knows a thing or two about bad science, said in a message read out to his “brothers and sisters in nerdiness”, that ideas and practices are proved only when they are challenged. He criticised the alternative medicine community’s intolerance of criticism. The comedian Dave Gorman said that to question ideas is the basis of the human condition. “This affects all of us,” he said to loud cheers.
Nick Cohen gave a fascinating exposure of Britain’s restrictive libel laws, which prevent criticism because the onus is placed on the defendant, and not the plaintiff. He added that libel is mean to protect good character; the people who have exploited English law to defend themselves include Russian oligarchs, people accused of having aided and abetted Al Qaeda, and fugitive film-makers. Making a fervent plea for US-style freedom of expression, where the plaintiff has to prove malice, he pointed out how shameful it is that the United States is enacting legislation specifically protecting American authors from British libel laws. “English law is claiming global jurisdiction through the Internet; people on the edge of respectability are using the law to silence their critics. Those with money and vindictiveness are filing suits. Britain should not be liberty’s enemy,” he added.
Dr Evan Harris MP, seriously questioned the NHS accepting certain homoeopathic claims, and called for evidence-based science, to prevent “the creeping exploitation of vulnerable population”.
Singh feels hugely uplifted by the enthusiastic support he has received. Last night, there were queues of people –– readers, bloggers, science writers, and campaigners for free expression –– willing to help. They want to raise funds, they want to write to their MPs to change Britain’s restrictive law, and they want to post letters. A child sent two pounds with her love.
Singh needs, and deserves, the support of all of us, who wish to reclaim the space for free thought; who want to wrest reason from the clutches of faith; who want to expand the notion of freedom on this sceptred isle; who would like those who have a grievance to prove their case and not force those who have said something to have to establish their innocence. And why? So that we are guided by chemistry and not alchemy; astronomy and not astrology; healing through science and not faith.
Science may not have all the answers yet. But rational minds ask the right questions. As Bertolt Brecht wrote in Lebden des Galile (The Life of Galileo). “The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.”
Defending Singh is another step in the ongoing battle to change our libel laws.
