Earth Day

So yesterday, 22nd April, was "Earth Day". DZ is aware that various climate activist groups are not popular in the UK. But despite the disruption they undoubtedly cause, no-one can doubt their commitment, sincerity, and commitment to protest in a peaceful manner. Those familiar with DZ blog will know he is almost obsessive about the Human Rights Act 1998, and there are a number of articles of the act that protect those who wish to protest peacefully.

• Article 5: Right to liberty and security
• Article 6: Right to a fair trial
• Article 7: No punishment without law
• Article 8: Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
• Article 9: Freedom of thought, belief and religion
• Article 10: Freedom of expression
• Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association

All of the above are invoked to a greater or lesser degree by those who protest. The present government has demonstrated an antipathy to the act, and even suggested it's abolition. It's an ambition that, for the time being seems to be on the back burner. However two recent very disturbing  cases illustrate that it's observation seems to be under attack. 

The first is the case of Trudi Warner.

 who faced a charge of contempt of court for simply holding up a placard outside a court. Fortunately the high court judge threw the case out. What is really disturbing is that the high court judge drew attention to the actions of the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General, which were described as "significantly mischaracterising the evidence". Let's translate that. They lied! The most senior lawyers in government fucking lied to try and charge this lady for doing something she had every right to do!!!

 

The second case is that of Dr Sarah Benn.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service has ruled Dr Sarah Benn's fitness to practise was impaired and said it must consider whether a sanction should be imposed on her registration. For participating in a peaceful protest, in defiance of a court injunction.

Let's leave aside for a moment the idea that the human rights act can apparently be over-ridden by the courts, something I find highly questionable. What is astounding is that she could face suspension, or even erasure for "Obstructing a private road." The GMC, and the tribunal service have a long history of disdain for the human rights act, and seem to think it doesn't apply to them. Also these tribunals are usually made up of complete amateurs who know nothing about the law. And as well as their arogance, they are inconsistent. 

"In January 1999 the Standards Committee of the GMC met to consider issues involving the behaviour of doctors who comment in the media. It was their view that the GMC should not attempt to curtail doctors' rights to express their personal opinions. Doctors, like anyone else commenting in the media, are subject to the same constraints imposed by media regulatory bodies, and the libel laws. Furthermore, the committee considered that the professionals reputation depends principally on the standards of care and conduct provided by doctors to their patients, and not on personal opinions as put forward in published letters or articles. Whilst you may disagree with the comments Dr Y has made, we cannot take action against a doctor who is expressing a personal opinion".

Dr Benn's actions have absolutely nothing to do with the standards of care she provides to her patients. I anticipate that, in view of the publicity this case has attracted, and the involvement of the BMA, that the GMC will back off. I expect that they will offer Dr Benn a warning. Dr Benn should be made aware that has the right to refuse a warning. The GMC should be told to fuck off.