The Peak

Singh scores a blow for freedom

By Lee MacPherson (The Manitoban)

WINNIPEG (CUP) — In 2008, the British Chiropractic Association filed a lawsuit against English science writer Simon Singh for an article he wrote in The Guardian called, “Beware the spinal trap.” He criticized the BCA for claiming that, by manipulating the spine, they can effectively treat certain childhood conditions.

London, as the unofficial “libel capital of the world,” puts the burden of proof on the defendant. So if I sue you for something you wrote about me, it’s up to you to prove that there wasn’t any malicious intent. Ben Goldacre, an English psychiatrist, was sued in 2008 for arguing that the vitamins Matthias Rath used to cure AIDS were ineffective. Goldacre won his case after 19 months, but legal fees still had to be paid.

Comedian Alexei Sayle was sued for libel once, saying, “It was a horrible experience.” Though he won his case, he also had to spend an exhaustive amount of time and money defending himself, saying “It would have been cheaper if I’d just stabbed the fucker.”

But English libel is not restricted to the U.K. “Libel tourism” is the phenomenon of using English libel from other countries. Rachel Ehrenfeld, American author of Funding Evil, was sued in 2004 by a Saudi Arabian businessman residing in Ireland. Her book wasn’t published in the U.K, but 23 copies were shipped there via the Internet. She lost $230,000 US, and was ordered to apologize and destroy all remaining books.

The Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet was sued for criticizing the shady financial practices of Kaupthing, an Icelandic Bank, resulting in issuing an apology and paying £100,000. Kaupthing collapsed six months later, along with the rest of the Icelandic economy.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2008 said that the “Practical application of the law of libel has served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work.” As a result, some countries are considering passing laws and taking action to protect their citizens from English libel, such as no longer exporting free press to the U.K., or restricting websites by location.

The BCA went to court in May of 2009, claiming that when Singh wrote that the BCA “happily promotes bogus treatments,” he meant that they knowingly were dishonest. Singh, however, contested that he meant that they were promoting claims that they sincerely believed were true, but were actually false. Singh lost his case (and £100,000), but filed for appeal on June 4. At this time, science bloggers began complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority — the “advertisement watchdog” — with examples of false advertisements by chiropractors.

Soon thereafter, the chair of the McTimoney Chiropractic Association (believed to represent half of British chiropractors) emailed members, warning, “The target of the campaigners is now any claims for treatment that cannot be substantiated with chiropractic research.” They called it a “witch hunt against chiropractors,” advising members to shut down their websites — as if expecting evidence for medical claims is unreasonable. Indeed, hundreds of chiropractors’ websites were soon taken down and on October 14, Singh was granted leave to appeal.

On December 9, the Coalition for Libel Reform urged politicians to support a bill to change the law in the interest of free speech. Singh now faces the three most senior judges in the U.K. His hearing on February 23, 2010 held so many activists that one lawyer commented that usually only major multiple murder trials draw such a crowd. The Lord Chief Justice was “baffled” that the case had gotten so far, unsure why the BCA hadn’t just written a rebuttal in the first place.

After blogger Alan Henness wrote last year about an Advertising Standards Authority policy that chiropractors must adhere to, campaigners looked up the entire BCA membership list, seeking misleading ads. As of this month, 25 per cent of chiropractors in Britain are under investigation — all because they picked on the little guy.