I think I’ve been neglectful about reporting on Simon Singh’s case. I suppose it’s too late for me to go into a comprehensive summary of the case, but let me hit the high points as I recall them.
Simon Singh is a science writer in the UK, he wrote a critical article about chiropractors and their lack of reliable, objective evidence demonstrating efficacy of some of their claims, particularly with regards to certain childhood ailments and asthma. He used the word “bogus” and, having read the original piece myself, I think it was quite obvious the word “bogus” meant “ineffective” rather than “fraudulent”.
The British Chiropractic Association sued Singh under Britain’s laughingstock-of-the-free-world libel laws. The initial ruling was determined by a judge that Singh meant fraudulent and allowed the suit to proceed. In the face of enormous legal bills and with the support of skeptics, scientists and writers from around the world, Singh continues his fight in the hopes of causing much-needed reform of the English libel laws.
Meanwhile, the BCA has been unable to provide any real evidence that their claims are true, and have been caught instructing their members to remove such claims from their websites. (Nah, they don’t sound like they know their treatments don’t work, do they?)
Today, they were at a pre-trial hearing, and things are, for the first time, sounding good:
Presiding at the appeal court in London today in a pre-trial hearing on the meaning of words in a 2008 article by Singh criticising chiropractic treatments, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said he was “troubled” by the “artificiality” of the case.
“The opportunities to put this right have not been taken,” Lord Judge said.
He continued: “At the end of this someone will pay an enormous amount of money, whether it be from Dr Singh’s funds or the funds of BCA subscribers.”
He went on to criticise the BCA’s reluctance to publish evidence to back up claims that chiropractic treatments could treat childhood asthma and other ailments.
“I’m just baffled. If there is reliable evidence, why hasn’t someone published it?” [From Index on Censorship » Blog Archive » Judge ‘baffled’ by Simon Singh chiropractic case]
Update: You can learn more about the “problem” with English libel laws here: The Libel Reform Campaign
It aint over…..Singh will lose.
Cheers
It aint over…..Singh will lose.
Cheers
That’s certainly quite possible, and it may even be what is necessary for anything to change.
Certainly, my sympathies are with Dr. Singh and I’d hate to see him lose just to be a martyr, but under British law, that may very well be unavoidable.
It seems that for these laws to be modernized it may require his conviction and outcry after the obvious gross miscarriage of what the average person would consider “justice”
As a non-legal professional, I am interpreting this in my own layman’s terms based on following this case as best I can, but consider the following:
The libel case is based on the notion that Dr. Singh libeled the BCA. Libel is defined (in a dictionary, not a court of law) as “a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation”
Now, that chiropractic cannot treat asthma or various other childhood ailments is not libellous, it’s reality. The evidence simply isn’t there to authoritatively state otherwise.
It’s another thing altogether to state that a chiropractic practionioner knows that his/her treatment for such things are false. If so, you can easily make the inference that they are committing a fraud. (again, dictionary: “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain”) Claiming someone is committing a fraud is certainly grounds for libel – if isn’t true.
The crux here is that a judge has already determined that Dr. Singh’s intended the word “bogus” to mean “fradulent” and therefore he has made as libellous statement. Under British libel law, Dr. Singh is essentially guilty unless he can prove himself innocent – which is the ass-backwards part.
It would be no difficulty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that chiropractic doesn’t work in those cases. Certainly there isn’t any valid clinical proof that it does work. The BCA has not yet produced anything compelling to show that their treatments are effective, nor are they required to do so in this case, because that’s not what’s on trial here.
What’s on trial is their intent.
Dr. Singh must now prove that they knew their claims were false. Trying to prove what someone else had in mind is very difficult indeed.
It’s just a shame that the judge who decided what Dr. Singh had in mind when he wrote the word “bogus” didn’t have to prove his interpretation to the same level of justification.
That’s certainly quite possible, and it may even be what is necessary for anything to change.
Certainly, my sympathies are with Dr. Singh and I’d hate to see him lose just to be a martyr, but under British law, that may very well be unavoidable.
It seems that for these laws to be modernized it may require his conviction and outcry after the obvious gross miscarriage of what the average person would consider “justice”
As a non-legal professional, I am interpreting this in my own layman’s terms based on following this case as best I can, but consider the following:
The libel case is based on the notion that Dr. Singh libeled the BCA. Libel is defined (in a dictionary, not a court of law) as “a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation”
Now, that chiropractic cannot treat asthma or various other childhood ailments is not libellous, it’s reality. The evidence simply isn’t there to authoritatively state otherwise.
It’s another thing altogether to state that a chiropractic practionioner knows that his/her treatment for such things are false. If so, you can easily make the inference that they are committing a fraud. (again, dictionary: “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain”) Claiming someone is committing a fraud is certainly grounds for libel – if isn’t true.
The crux here is that a judge has already determined that Dr. Singh’s intended the word “bogus” to mean “fradulent” and therefore he has made as libellous statement. Under British libel law, Dr. Singh is essentially guilty unless he can prove himself innocent – which is the ass-backwards part.
It would be no difficulty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that chiropractic doesn’t work in those cases. Certainly there isn’t any valid clinical proof that it does work. The BCA has not yet produced anything compelling to show that their treatments are effective, nor are they required to do so in this case, because that’s not what’s on trial here.
What’s on trial is their intent.
Dr. Singh must now prove that they knew their claims were false. Trying to prove what someone else had in mind is very difficult indeed.
It’s just a shame that the judge who decided what Dr. Singh had in mind when he wrote the word “bogus” didn’t have to prove his interpretation to the same level of justification.
In Desmond v. Bower, Judge Eady excluded testimony from Jafar Omid that was directly relevant to the defence case that Desmond used his newspapers as a tool for revenge. The court of appeal described his decision as “plainly wrong” and said that it could lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Bower won.
Eady is not helping our reputation for libel tourism.
In Desmond v. Bower, Judge Eady excluded testimony from Jafar Omid that was directly relevant to the defence case that Desmond used his newspapers as a tool for revenge. The court of appeal described his decision as “plainly wrong” and said that it could lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Bower won.
Eady is not helping our reputation for libel tourism.