Yesterday, Simon Singh won an important appeal in the libel action he is defending against the British Chiropractic Association. Singh is being sued after writing that the BCA “happily promotes bogus treatments” for which there is “not a jot of evidence” that they are effective. In yesterday’s ruling, a distinguished panel of judges declared that Singh’s article should be taken as a “statement of opinion, and one backed by reasons”. This opens the door for Singh to mount a “fair comment” defence (which they prefer to call “honest opinion” although that isn’t the official legal terminology). If the BCA pursue the case further it is highly likely they will lose.
The judgement is available as a PDF and was hailed by commentators as not only an intelligent judgement, but a somewhat literary one too. It quotes Milton, Orwell and Galileo along the way.
Padraig Reidy of Index on Censorship was the quickest of the journalists covering this issue to file a report on the outcome, and he has a bit more detail. I contented myself with taking some photos of the press conference, at which Singh and others gave their reactions.
[My photos on the PEN Flickr stream really are becoming a one-stop-shop for all your ‘close-ups of people talking at a public event’ needs.]
Also present at the press conference was the blogger Jack of Kent, who is the one-stop-shop for commentary on the BCA vs Singh issue (Simon says that its the site even he visits, when he wants to know what’s going on with his own case…). ‘Jack’ pointed out that the BCA had chosen to sue in order to protect and enhance its reputation, and discredit Simon Singh along the way. In fact, the reverse has happened. The case has caused much more damage, and much more negative publicity, than the original offending article. A Streisand Effect writ large.
Tag: Debate (Page 9 of 27)
Unfortunately, a busy week at work meant that Blair’s appearance at the Chilcott Inquiry pretty much passed me by. After The Event news reports confirmed what we all expected anyway – Mr Blair refused to apologise or admit any wrong-doing.
My take: Put aside for a moment all the issues of legality, post-war planning, the monstrosity of Saddam’s regim, and oil. (They are huge issues, admittedly… but put them aside anyway). We are still left with a central dischord, which is this: Prime Minister Blair’s actual reason for waging to war, is not the reason we were told we were going to war. This is untenable in a democracy, regardless of the ultimate morality of the conflict, of the death we caused.
We, the people, know this.
Tony Blair knows this.
Moreover, we know he knows this. Moreover moreover, he knows we know this. And we know he knows we know. And he knows that we know that he knows. Ad nauseum. Yet, no apology. It is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
The issue of Iraq clearly needs a Frost/Nixon moment, where the concerns of the public are at least acknowledged by the ex-leader at the heart of the controversy. This is unlikely to ever materialise, which is why this is an issue that will continue to fester for a generation, or more.
The terror suspect who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound plane is the son of a Nigerian banker who alerted US authorities to his “extreme religious views” months ago, it was reported Saturday.
(Via Andrew Sullivan, who says he is ‘angry‘).
I am reminded of Cory Doctorow’s point at the Convention on Modern Liberty last year, about the problem of collecting too much information:
We’ve been told that we’re collecting larger haystacks of information in the hope that it will make the needles easier tio find. If you look at the 9/11 Commission report, and you find out that in fact the America intelligence apparatus knew that the September 11th attack was happening – in hindsight – but they also knew a million other irrelevancies, and that an adequate approach to discovering it might have been to collect less information, not more.
The video is below:
Continue reading
Islam4UK want to march through Wooten Basset in a provocative protest against the British presence in Afghanistan. It is, as Dave Osler says on Liberal Conspiracy, a huge “headache” for the principled secular left who want defend free speech. Also at LibCon, Scepticisle points out that Anjem Choudry, who leads Islam4UK, is a “media troll” who is being deliberately provocative. He wants to provoke a violent reaction, and the best course of action is to not give him one. This means allowing the march to proceed, however offensive the message. The small numbers it will attract will demonstrate just how fringe and ridiculous Choudry and his ideas actually are.
I’m surprised by the illiberal line taken by James Alexander at Progress:
This planned event will turn to violence and lead to a counter-response by the English Defence League. Then the BNP will begin to stir up divisions in the surrounding localities.
Even if you disagree with the actions of the brave soldiers who fight to protect British security, it is wrong to antagonise the families of the fallen. This is hateful and evil. I am writing to the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson MP, to call for Islam4UK to be also banned.
I don’t buy into the meme that a provocative march will necessarily be met with violence from outraged Britons. Politicians and public figures should seize this as a ‘teaching moment’ and now use their influence to condemn in advance such actions, and inspire people to a more tolerant approach. Gordon Brown has failed to do this so far.
Alexander’s Progress piece seems to have been seized upon by the sort of comments that one usually sees on tabloid comment boards. I’ve just posted my own comment which sums up what I think:
I disagree with James Alexander … in suggesting that the Islam4UK march should be banned. That would be anti-free speech. If our troops are fighting for anything in Afghanistan, it is human rights, including the right to free expression (something sadly lacking in that country at the moment). The greatest tribute to our soldiers, living and fallen, would be to maintain our principles consistently at home and abroad: This means allowing the Islam4UK march.
The idea that the British people en mass cannot control themselves when confronted with a sorry band of Islamists is ridiculous and divisive. Locals and others who disagree with Islam4UK’s ridiculous ideas are perfectly capable of staging a bigger, peaceful counter-march, without any of the pathetic threats of violence that the other commenters here are so keen to see realised. It is this, and only this course of action that is consistent with the British spirit of tolerance and democracy. Progress members should be using their power and influence to bring this course of action about. Anything less is to sink towards the level of the fundamentalists.
A Wootten Basset memorial procession, 17th Nov 2009. Photo by Robin Hodson on Flickr.
Mark Pack asked me to write a guest piece for the Liberal Democrat Voice on Libel Reform. It was a good opportunity to dig a little deeper into the argument for reform, and rebutt one of the most common objections to making changes.
The clamour for a change to our pernicious libel laws grows louder every day. In November, Index on Censorship and English PEN published Free Speech is Not For Sale, a report into the state of libel in England & Wales, and the bizarre phenomenon of libel tourism. Impressed by this report, Jack Straw announced the creation of a working group to deliver reform. Lib Dem peer Lord Lester announced on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme he will begin drafting a libel bill, and MPs have begun to sign EDM 423 (tabled by Dr Evan Harris) which demands a libel overhaul. High profile cases like the recent battle between Trafigura and the BBC, and the suing of cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst, have shown the general public what a blight on free speech our libel laws have become, and a petition for change is nearing ten thousand signatures (do sign it if you haven’t already).
Not everyone is convinced by the need for reform, however. Some people resist the need for change, and it is up to campaigners to win the argument. Since the Bournemouth conference made a brave manifesto commitment to libel reform in September, ‘campaigners’ now includes every Liberal Democrat party activist. Liberal Democrat Voice is the ideal place to explore the sticking points of this debate a little more deeply. Continue reading