The British Chiropractic Association happily promotes bogus treatments.
The angry godless diatribe has been postponed once again, in favour of an evening watching the first Steven Soderbergh movie I think I ever actually enjoyed, and finding time to write a quick update on Simon Singh’s libel case.
Last year, the preliminary ruling on meaning did not go well for Simon. Mr Justice Eady ruled that his article discussing chiropractic therapy, which was published in the Guardian, should be classified as a “statement” of fact, not an expression of opinion.
It was also determined that, by declaring that the British Chiropractic Association “happily promotes bogus treatments“, Simon was attributing deliberate dishonesty to the BCA. The position he would have to defend, if he continued to fight the libel charge, was that the BCA were knowingly and dishonestly peddling ineffective medical treatments, even though this wasn’t something he’d meant his article to accuse them of.
That there is “not a jot” of evidence supporting certain claims, such as those regarding spinal manipulation as an effective treatment for infant colic, is entirely supported by the scientific data. Since these are claims that the BCA publicly made, Simon wanted to contribute to this public conversation, and help add to the general public understanding as to the state of affairs regarding these claims.
He requested permission to appeal this ruling on the meaning of his words; was denied it; requested permission to appeal that; was granted it; won the right to appeal; and, this morning, the Court of Appeal overturned Justice Eady’s original ruling. Simon’s claims were ruled, by the Lord Chief Justice, to be “a statement of opinion, and one backed by reasons”, allowing him to pursue a defence of “fair comment”.
So, they still have to argue the actual, y’know, case. But the tide has turned dramatically on where the goalposts are placed. Today was one step of many on a long and costly road, but it was a fantastic result, worth celebrating and rallying around.
Here’s what some cleverer people have had to say about it.
Index on Censorship, who also have a statement from Simon himself. He points out:
It is ridiculous that it has cost £200,000 to establish the meaning of a handful of words… I am still angry that libel is so horrendously expensive. That is just one of the reasons why the battle for libel reform must continue.
Jack of Kent was there, and highlights some of the more interesting aspects of the ruling, ahead of a full report to come this weekend. In particular:
Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation.
Speaking of which, sign the petition here if you haven’t already. We really need this. I’m going to bed. No connection between those two things. Just didn’t feel like starting a new paragraph.