British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Jack of Kent]

He is almost arguing that libel laws should be abolished.

The Rascal!


In fact, I don't think libel should be abolished. There are circumstances where it is quite right for one person to be able to use the law to stop another from spreading damaging allegations.

But I do think the law of libel needs radical reform.

The two recent posts of mine which the (incredibly wonderful) Blue Wode linked to here are part of a wider project of me thinking through the best ways to practically reform English libel law.

ps Although Mojo is not a lawyer, his posts on legal matters always have great credibility.

 

[rjh01]

I just re read the links. The second one the paragraph below appears. if you change the words 'public safety and public health' to almost any issue that you could be sued on then it would still be true. For example if I said that a certain person or organization was not doing a very good job (and quoted examples) then I could claim that there is a 'clear public interest' as per the paragraph below.

That is what I am talking about in my previous post.

There is a clear public interest in statements being published to the general public which regard public safety and public health; so clear a public interest that it is difficult to conceive of a better example. If the statements are malicious, then the claimant can still sue; if the statements are merely incorrect or unfair then the claimant can still point this out - I would accept a statutory right of reply or a duty to make an appropriate correction.

Edit. I do agree that you should be able to sue someone for being malicious as per the quote.

 

[AndyD]

I just re read the links. The second one the paragraph below appears. if you change the words 'public safety and public health' to almost any issue that you could be sued on then it would still be true. For example if I said that a certain person or organization was not doing a very good job (and quoted examples) then I could claim that there is a 'clear public interest' as per the paragraph below.

Well, yes, if you change what Jack wrote then it could look like he's calling for the abolition of libel laws Change it a bit more and you'd have Jack, the lawyer, arguing for the abolition of all laws

The two recent posts of mine which the (incredibly wonderful) Blue Wode linked to here are part of a wider project of me thinking through the best ways to practically reform English libel law.

The incredibly wonderful me actually linked to them, but that's okay. I'll get over being invisible, sometime soon, I'm sure, really. Don't worry about me folks, I'm okay. Honestly. (sniff)

 

[BillyJoe]

Yeah, but who was first to draw attention to rjh01's mistatement about Jack of Kent's posts?

...well, he is arguing "for a publisher of a statement concerning public health or public safety to have the automatic benefit of qualified privilege", which automatically means that the publisher of such a statement cannot be sued.

 

[Jack of Kent]

The incredibly wonderful me actually linked to them, but that's okay. I'll get over being invisible, sometime soon, I'm sure, really. Don't worry about me folks, I'm okay. Honestly. (sniff)

I am sorry, Andy. I am sure you are incredibly wonderful too, if only because you link to my site and take an interest in this important case.

Any JREF people at TAM London (this weekend) also interested in this case are welcome to come and find me and have a chat. I should be going along for most of it, especially Simon Singh's talk.

 

[Jack of Kent]

I just re read the links. The second one the paragraph below appears. if you change the words 'public safety and public health' to almost any issue that you could be sued on then it would still be true.

Ah, but 'public safety and public health' both, I think, have the important 'public' element

More seriously, reputation is a private right, and so it should be rebutted only by something which has a greater public interest.

 

[rjh01]

Ah, but 'public safety and public health' both, I think, have the important 'public' element

More seriously, reputation is a private right, and so it should be rebutted only by something which has a greater public interest.

I do not understand.

Which is greater for any issue
a. Reputation
b. public interest?

Who and how can people tell which is the answer in any situation? Is this a matter of fact or opinion?

If the answer is an opinion then different people can have different opinions.

If the answer is a fact then where is the evidence?

Or is there something special about 'public safety and public health'?


Also what does 'public safety and public health' mean? Is there for example something safety and health which is not 'public safety and public health'?

Sorry for the heaps of questions. It is what I do when I want to understand something important.

 

[Mojo]

Publication of material that is in the public interest good, suppression (by legal chill or otherwise) of such material bad, mkay?

 

[AndyD]

Who and how can people tell which is the answer in any situation? Is this a matter of fact or opinion?

I'm not a lawyer but my guess would be that, in practice, this would be one more consideration - like "fair comment", "statement of fact" and "truth" - for a judge to consider. When a couple of cases have been dumped up-front because of the "public interest" test, lawyers would presumably start advising their litigious clients to reconsider suing since their chance of success would be considerably lowered.

Perhaps Jack can advise if tests are weighted such that "public interest" would generally over-ride "statement of fact" - or if the judge gets to dismiss any test he doesn't want to apply in a given case. Or, if it couldn't get that far under the changes he proposes.

 

[zeno2712]

Any JREF people at TAM London (this weekend) also interested in this case are welcome to come and find me and have a chat. I should be going along for most of it, especially Simon Singh's talk.

I'll be there as well! Sounds like it's going to be a great weekend.

Sorry I don't visit here more often - too many forums, too little time!

 

[Mojo]

I'm not a lawyer but my guess would be that, in practice, this would be one more consideration - like "fair comment", "statement of fact" and "truth" - for a judge to consider.

This is one of the issues that has already been decided in the first hearing of the BCA v. Singh case: see paragraph 14 of the judgment, available on Jack of Kent's blog: BCA v Singh: The Official Ruling.

 

[zeno2712]

Blogging: Zeno's Blog » If it walks like a chiropractor and quacks like a chiropractor…

I can't post the URL because I've not posted here sufficiently, so go to zenosblog.com.

 

[rjh01]

Blogging: Zeno's Blog » If it walks like a chiropractor and quacks like a chiropractor…

I can't post the URL because I've not posted here sufficiently, so go to www.zenosblog.com.

Fixed the URL. You do have the post count to do URLs now.

 

[blutoski]

Hi:

A colleague is currently requiring legal assistance. He is a registered massage therapist. It's the equivalent of a Singh style SLAPP suit regarding his published opinions on exaggerated claims within his profession and some other allied professions.

We have learned that it is strategic and that there is a plan to make his case an example by having his license revoked. Allegedly, the objective is to crush all published criticism of alternative medicine in this province, regardless of accuracy in the published statements.

This could get expensive, so we're looking for opportunities to assist with possible costs, should it get to that point.

I'd be grateful if members familiar with BC's pro bono legal opportunities could pm me offlist with suggestions for how he can obtain external funding for a defense.

Thanks.

 

[AndyD]

Originally Posted by AndyD View Post
I'm not a lawyer but my guess would be that, in practice, this would be one more consideration - like "fair comment", "statement of fact" and "truth" - for a judge to consider.

This is one of the issues that has already been decided in the first hearing of the BCA v. Singh case: see paragraph 14 of the judgment, available on Jack of Kent's blog: BCA v Singh: The Official Ruling.

Yep, I see that public interest was mentioned - but does it currently carry any weight when compared with the statement of "fact" that seems to be Singh's undoing (as a result of Eady's conclusion)?

I guess what I'm wondering is whether Jack's suggestion just gives "public interest" more weight in pre-trial hearings or whether it would prevent a suit even making it before a judge?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Hi:

A colleague is currently requiring legal assistance. He is a registered massage therapist. It's the equivalent of a Singh style SLAPP suit regarding his published opinions on exaggerated claims within his profession and some other allied professions.

We have learned that it is strategic and that there is a plan to make his case an example by having his license revoked. Allegedly, the objective is to crush all published criticism of alternative medicine in this province, regardless of accuracy in the published statements.

This could get expensive, so we're looking for opportunities to assist with possible costs, should it get to that point.

I'd be grateful if members familiar with BC's pro bono legal opportunities could pm me offlist with suggestions for how he can obtain external funding for a defense.

Thanks.

Can you link to details of the specific case?


ps- Would one of you smug bastards with a TAM London ticket be good enough to post about it here afterwards ?

 

[blutoski]

Can you link to details of the specific case?

Not at this time. It's not in the conventional legal system - it is taking the form of a disciplinary hearing. We're trying to prepare in case they rule against him and revoke his license - the bylaws that allow this are too vague and the plan is to challenge them.

 

[BillyJoe]

A related item of interest (perhaps)

I just watched a recording of this week's "QandA" (Question and Answer) program on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company).

Christoper Hitches reveals that he once wrote a piece about Roman Polanski's alleged rape of a thirteen year old girl 30 years ago (for which he was recently arrested whilst attending a film festival in Switzerland). According to Hitchens, Polanski sued successfully in England (despite the article having been written in America), successfully silenced any further public discussion of his alleged crime, and went off with a great deal of their money. In Hitchens words: "I hope he gets screwed this time" or words to that effect.

May I say likewise in the case of the BCA in relation to Simon Singh.

 

[Blue Wode]

The following letter from Professor Edzard Ernst, which has great relevancy to this topic, is lifted from last month’s International Journal of Clinical Practice:

Re: Chiropractic for otitis?

Sir,

Many professional organisations of chiropractic such as the British Chiropractic Association (1), the Chiropractic Association of Ireland (2) or the American Chiropractic Association (3) state or imply that chiropractic is an effective treatment for ear infections. A recent survey furthermore demonstrates that 54% of UK chiropractors subscribe to this idea (4). So is there any evidence that it is true?

In an attempt to find all clinical trials on the subject, I conducted electronic literature searches in the following databases: Medline, Embase, Cinhal and AMED (September 2008). No language or time restrictions were imposed. To get included, an article needed to refer to a controlled clinical trial of chiropractic for ear infection (otitis). Case reports, case series and uncontrolled or feasibility studies were excluded.

These searches generated 35 hits. After removing duplicates, 27 articles were read. None of them met the inclusion criteria. Previous research has shown that professional chiropractic organisations ‘make claims for the clinical art of chiropractic that are not currently available scientific evidence…’ (5). The claim to effectively treat otitis seems to be one of them. It is time now, I think, that chiropractors either produce the evidence or abandon the claim.

E. Ernst
Complementary Medicine,
Peninsula Medical School,
25 Victoria Park Road,
Exeter EX2 4NT
UK

References

1. British Chiropractic association, 2009. http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk (accessed January 2009).
2. Chiropractic Association of Ireland, 2008. http://www.chiropractic.ie (accessed January 2009).
3. American Chiropractic Association, 2009, http://www.amerchiro.org (accessed January 2009).
4. Pollentier A, Langworthy JM. The scope of chiropractic practice: a survey of chiropractors in the UK. Clin Chiropractic 2007; 10: 147-55.
5. Grod JP, Sikorski D, Keating JC. Unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures from the largest State, Provincial, and National Chiropractic Associations and Research Agencies. J Man Phys Ther 2001; 24: 514-9.

Chiropractic for otitis? Int J Clin Pract, September 2009;63(9):1392-1393

Also relevant to this topic is the following blog post about a chiropractor who has lodged a complaint against the Australian Skeptics Group:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/a...lodges-complaint-against-australian-skeptics/

The Australian Skeptics’ excellent reply can be read here:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/a...lodges-complaint-against-australian-skeptics/

 

[AndyD]

Interesting that Ireano claims to support vaccination yet as late as July this year, Google cache shows he was listed as a professional member of the AVN. Congratulations to him if he's retracted that support. Perhaps the public campaign against the AVN is having some effect after all.

Ireano appears to believe that chiro is legitimised by the fact it is regulated and taught in colleges. But homeopathic products are also regulated and homeopathy is taught in colleges despite the fact the TGA keeps finding against anyone who advertises actual therapeutic claims for homeopathic products.

It's a perverse regulation system to be sure.