British Libel Laws: Freaking Horrendous
04Aug. 09
It’s probably unsurprising that that is what’s on my mind at the moment, having just come back from a talk by the charismatic-but-not-charismatic-enough-to-charm-a-chiropracter Simon Singh. While I’m sure that someone else will write up an article about his talk, one thing that was briefly mentioned by a member of the audience was a case in the mid-nineties now referred to as “McLibel”.
Holy mother of Vishnu. If you thought British libel laws were insane before, just wait and see…
In short, McDonalds brought libel proceedings against five members of London Greenpeace for distributing flyers they said contained false and damaging information. Three members apologised and were dropped from the suit, while two (Helen Steel and David Morris) did not. Denied legal aid, they were required to represent themselves in court against one of the biggest multinational corporations in the world. Keep in mind that under British libel laws, Steel and Morris had to prove that what they had said was not libel, a tough task in Britain even if you aren’t representing yourself.
After two and a half years, Steel and Morris lost the case — though the judge only awarded half the amount of requested damages to McDonalds as he found that some of the claims made by Steel and Morris did have merit. Steel and Morris never paid, and McDonalds, wisely, never pursued the matter. In various appeals the pair managed to reduce damages even further, but when their appeal to the House of Lords was not accepted they took the case to the European Court of Human Rights…who ruled that the UK’s libel laws contravene Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered the British government to pay damages to Steel and Morris.
How completely off track do you have to be for your libel law to contravene human rights? There is something deeply disturbing about the situation, and things have not changed for the better as we are witnessing with Simon Singh at the moment, and Ben Goldacre a few months ago. Yes, Ben may have won his case, but only with significant support from the Guardian newspaper who thankfully stood by him. The time spent fighting that court case is time lost and wasted, and we are now seeing nearly exactly the same thing happen with Simon Singh now — only he doesn’t have a newspaper backing him in his fight. I would say that we can only wish him the best of luck…but there is in fact more you can do in this situation.
This is the website for Sense About Science, a UK based science communication organisation particularly devoted to responding to the misrepresentation of science. At the moment they are mounting a campaign to keep libel laws out of science in the UK, a cause well worth championing:
“The use of the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence discourages debate, denies the public access to the full picture and encourages use of the courts to silence critics. The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic through an open discussion in the medical literature or mainstream media.”
Go to the site, have a look around, and if you can spare it at all please donate to the cause. The tactics used against scientists and science communicators in the UK to silence dissent amounts to little more than legal and financial bullying, tactics which have no place in either science or a court of law — yet which have sadly shouldered their way into both. Speak up, donate, and let the British government know that their laws are enabling frauds and charlatans circumvent the checks and balances of the medical system by intimidating those who would speak out against them.
Tags: libel, McLibel, Sense About Science, Simon Singh, UK
August 5th, 2009 at 2:00 am
Why has no journalist or writer considered writing about the Groucho Club and the ‘pre publishing test case for libel’ they are taking against a writer of a book about the club. The book is titled ‘The Groucho Gate Affair’. This is the worst libel case in UK history and an attack on free speech. What’s funny is that the case is about what could be written and not about what has been written. I read a press release about it yesterday and yet no UK newspaper will run the story. There is no mention of it even when you do a Google news search. You must all be intimidated by the big bad Groucho Club. If you are all supporters of free speech and are appalled by the libel laws then why is no one supporting this writer? You must know, (that is all writers and journalists out there) that the only way to defeat a threat to free speech is to stand up and be counted whenever and wherever there is an attack on free speech. A libel action cannot be taken against everyone who supports the same issue no matter how much influence is exerted over the media. As far as I am concerned the current hypocrisy by the mainstream media is clearly a sign that the fight for ‘Free Speech –V– UK Libel Laws’ is over. We have lost.
I love to debate and talk about issues I care deeply about, but henceforth I am just going to be a quiet girl and never ever say a word about anyone ever ever again or never ever speak my mind again. I surrender
Leanne
August 6th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Naww, don’t give up Leanne!
I remember watching the McLibel doco in year 7 at high school… really is amazing stuff, I never forgot it.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:56 am
Legal Aid is a big issue — my own grievance is that I earn too much and don’t qualify. To some degree it keeps some businesses alive as they deal with magistrates courts and the majority who want legal representation aren’t on any income.