A while ago I wrote to my MP, John Gummer, about libel reform. I'm not the sort of person who normally bothers writing to my MP about things, mostly on account of him being a complete arse, but having heard Simon Singh talk about the subject at TAM London last October I felt it was worth a punt.
A lot of you will know Simon Singh's backstory so I won't recap at length (you can read about it here if you need to), but essentially he is putting his weight behind a campaign to get MPs to sign an Early Day Motion backing a reform of Britain's draconian libel laws. Currently they prohibit free speech by making it financially unviable for individuals to question the claims of large organisations, however spurious those claims might be.
I've never liked John Gummer. He is probably best known for a publicity stunt in 1990 in which he attempted to feed his young daughter a beefburger to 'prove' that British beef was safe after BSE scares. As it happened, she turned her nose up at it. To rescue the photo opportunity he then, apparently, got one of his staff to take a bite out of the burger before holding it in front of his daughter's mouth and flashing his pearly whites.
But that was a long time ago. People change. And the fact that he writes a column for The Catholic Herald shouldn't prejudice my opinion either. And those expenses claims for mole-catching, well, they might have been legitimate. I wasn't there.
So I read the reply with interest and was encouraged by what I saw. It appeared that he agreed with EDM 423 and would be joining its supporters. But then, predictably enough, his arse-like qualities came to the fore.
What bugs me is his reasoning. "[T]he burden of proof should remain on individuals who make defamatory claims". Well that's just daft. He's basically implying that you can say whatever you want as long as you get there first. If I start a business selling the crumbs from the bottom of my toaster and claiming that they have healing properties when sprinkled in coffee, why should the burden of proof be on my detractors? Surely the burden lies with the most extraordinary claim. No one should be scared, for fear of financial ruin, to publish evidence that contradicts a misleading practice.
If you haven't yet signed the petition for libel reform and would like to, you can do so here.
6 comments:
One of the biggest problems anyone is going to face in persuading MPs to change the libel laws is the fact that MPs themselves already have parliamentary privilege. Even outside of parliament the prevailing attitude is such that essentially they freedom to say what they like, as long as they couch it in some kind of political debate. They're likely to have their statements attacked by their opponents but the chances of a legal challenge - and more to the point, the ensuing cost - being levelled against them are very slim.
I don't agree with him, but I can see his point. If I write in my imaginary newspaper column that John Gummer likes defenestrating badgers, it doesn't seem reasonable that he should have to prove he doesn't. Obviously that's just one scenario, and there are many other scenarios that are obviously colossally wrong the other way, but I think plenty of people are swayed by that thought. I'm not sure it's been addressed as well as it could have been by the reform campaign - even though I'm happy to sign the pledge and agree with the tenets, I've had twinges about that problem.
Surely libel is a civil offence? Usually civil cases operate on balance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. If that were reasonably applied to libel then (Eady's English-comprehension test scores aside) Singh would have to do nothing beyond pointing at a Cochrane review and letting the BCA try to counter it, while Gummer could ask the judge 'did you see any splattered badgers on patios as you drove here this morning' and then sit back while you try to prove that his patio is any different.
Hey Graham! You almost had me changing my mind on Gummer, until he flip-flopped at the end.
Just to clarify Justice Eady's ruling: Eady ruled that Singh's use of the word 'bogus' (in his Guardian article discussing chiropractors' treatment of childhood ailments) implied that the chiro's *knew* that their treatments were fake. In fact, Singh merely used the word 'bogus' to mean there was "not a jot of evidence" to show the treatment worked.
Eady's interpretation meant Singh could not win the case against the BCA, unless the ruling itself was overturned. Singh has appealed against the ruling, and now has a fair chance of winning.
If Singh wins this appeal, then he could successfully show (using a Cochrane Review) that there is no evidence that chiropractic works.
Either way, Singh will lose out substantially, as you cannot get legal costs paid defending a libel action.
Apologies:
1. If I made any errors above;
2. For my rather dull post!
I think it's commendable that you wrote to your MP. A lot of people are exasperated about points of law but don't do anything peacefully constructive to bring about change, so all credit to you for trying.
Oh, and I do find the notion of Gummer defending himself against a charge of defenestrating badgers quite funny.
Here's my take on the Simon Singh case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5tZKCcLLWs
"I don't believe that cracking my spine,
Can uncross my eyes of make my ears fine!"
Hilarious!
PS My MP (Rt Hon Nigel Waterson - Con) sent me a very similar letter to that which Graham received.
:(
Post a Comment