Of late, I have noted that many of my friends and colleagues have been admonished for their critical remarks regarding various NHS authorities. To assist their defences, I am featuring a section of a leading judgment on Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 [ Free Speech].
This also applies to the current unlawful treatment of Dr X by the General Medical Council and NCAS. This doctor was sanctioned by the GMC for emails he had written criticising the MMC. These emails were subsequently discussed by NCAS. When Dr X attempted to write to their lawyers in his defence, a referral was sent again to the GMC immediately. Apparently, according to NCAS and Prof Scotland, no doctor can criticise any NCAS officials.
This case law also applies to Prof Paice and Gillian Needham who sanctioned Dr Scot Jnr. Their sanction was unlawful and this is the reason why. I ought not to harp on about this issue but I suspect there are lessons that should be learned from it.
I trust the General Medical Council will be reading this in detail.
This also applies to the current unlawful treatment of Dr X by the General Medical Council and NCAS. This doctor was sanctioned by the GMC for emails he had written criticising the MMC. These emails were subsequently discussed by NCAS. When Dr X attempted to write to their lawyers in his defence, a referral was sent again to the GMC immediately. Apparently, according to NCAS and Prof Scotland, no doctor can criticise any NCAS officials.
This case law also applies to Prof Paice and Gillian Needham who sanctioned Dr Scot Jnr. Their sanction was unlawful and this is the reason why. I ought not to harp on about this issue but I suspect there are lessons that should be learned from it.
I trust the General Medical Council will be reading this in detail.
The quote is from a respected Judge [ Sedley J].
REDMOND-BATE Appellant - and -DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Respondent Case No: CO/188/99
The quote is
"Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers’ Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear. From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas. A central purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights has been to set close limits to any such assumed power. We in this country continue to owe a debt to the jury which in 1670 refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy"
If anyone would like a copy of the case law, please email me on rpal@btinternet.com
3 comments:
Rita I hope you read this. Dr Siddiq told the GMC's kangaroo court panel to f... off.
Doctor storms out of GMC hearing
11 hours ago
A Muslim doctor accused of writing a virulently homophobic letter to a magazine for GPs has claimed he could not receive a fair trial and stormed out of the General Medical Council hearing.
Dr Muhammad Siddiq, head of the Islamic Medical Association, dismissed his barrister and left after he was denied an adjournment in which to find a new lawyer.
Dr Siddiq, a GP at the Luqman Medical Centre, Walsall, is accused of writing a letter to Pulse magazine in July last year, claiming gay people needed the "stick of law to put them on the right path".
Before leaving, he told the panel in Manchester: "I am in no position to represent myself and therefore I think it only appropriate that the panel make allowances for this by granting a reasonable time of adjournment.
"It disappoints me greatly that this long and arduous journey in the hope of receiving the right to a fair hearing has come to an end by the panel's decision.
"I have little or no option but to take no further part in proceedings and now request leave from the panel."
Rita,
Freedom of speech is more than the freedom to use the language we choose in the place we choose.
It is also the freedom to think the unthinkable and debate it reasonably. Reasoned discussion and explanation is the most effective way to help people change their minds. This assumes you can "win" the argument. And if "you" cant "win" the argument then "you" need to rethink your arguments.
The freedom to understand ourselves and to explain ourselves to others is the foundation of progress. Only by reasoned discussion with all parties, can we reach the best position. The Founding Fathers understood this. This is the difference between a democracy and a totalitarian state.
Without that freedom, we destroy ourselves, our health, and our will to live. The State of Medicine will not improve if it is run like a third world dicatorship.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire
Anon
See http://nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/doctor-tells-gmc-panel-to-fk-off.html
Thankyou for informing me. I whipped the above up early this am. Hope its ok.
Post a Comment