Singh is a well-known critic of alternative medicine. For the last 18 months his life has been made a misery by a libel suit from the British Chiropractic Association. On 19 April 2008 he wrote in the Guardian:
The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organization is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.
To succeed in a defamation claim it is necessary to show that you have suffered damage to your reputation as a result of the published statement. It is a defence to show that the statement is true or that it constituted fair comment.
Singh’s first problem came with the meaning of the first sentence. It can be read it two ways:
(1) The BCA claims its members can treat colic etc and that claim is false; or
(2) The BCA is making the claim knowing it to be false.
The first would be relatively easy for Singh to deal with. All he would need to do would be to show that it was not unreasonable for him to think that the claim was false. The second is hard to deal with because the truth of the claim is irrelevant. Singh has to show that the BCA believed it to be false, or at least that that was a reasonable interpretation. Of course, all the evidence is the other way. The BCA apparently believes the claim, however daft or incompetent Singh may believe that to be.
There is a similar issue with the second sentence, where the BCA claims that “happily” implies “knowingly”, with the same result.
In a preliminary ruling on 7 May, the judge supported the BCA’s interpretation, which bodes ill for Singh’s chances of success.
The UK libel laws clearly need reform. Too many journalists are being gagged by the rich and powerful because it is too risky and too time-consuming to defend libel actions. But I am not sure that Singh’s case helps the reformers.
Singh claims that he never intended to impugn the good faith of chiropracters. Indeed I think the first sentence is somewhat borderline. It could, I think, be reasonably interpreted as saying no more than that chiropracters are peddling remedies which do not work. The second sentence is not totally unambiguous, but on balance I tend to read it as “knowingly promotes”.
Clearly it would be quite wrong for Singh to be fettered in his ability to claim that chiropractic remedies do not work. He should be allowed to make those claims forcefully and without any need to present a balanced picture. But there is no obvious reason why he should be free to condemn chiropracters as dishonest.
One may still look at this with some alarm and think that these would be easy drafting mistakes to make under the pressure of a deadline. True. But, as usually happens, Singh has the opportunity to apologize, which would have carried no cost except mild embarrassment. He decided to fight the case as a matter of principle. That seems to me just dumb. If you want to fight as a matter of principle, then you need to pick your case carefully.
Post a Comment