The tactic of demonising dissenters from the global warming orthodoxy has a long and dishonourable history now, and I'm sure that readers scarcely need me to recount the instances of bad behaviour that have made it to the public record. I was struck by the parallels between these stories and the experiences of Professor Joseph Meirion Thomas, a cancer surgeon who had the temerity to write a series of articles questioning certain aspects of the way health services are run in the UK.
The resultant Twitter storm would have looked entirely familiar to BH readers, with GPs and nurses all over the country flinging vulgar abuse at the good professor. This probably all falls under the heading of "free speech" (although also under the heading of "bad manners"), but as ever with these things there were less reputable ideas floating around, with one GP trying to organise a complaint to the General Medical Council and, in a painful echo of Andrew Dessler's contemptible behaviour during the Bengtsson affair, a GP from Fulham asked if the professor was "unwell". A letter describing Meirion Thomas as "vile" and "evil" was circulated to doctors in the area where the professor worked.
Also familiar were the attempts by those at the head of the relevant institutions to retaliate: Dr Maureen Baker, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners called for Barnardo's to refuse a donation from Professor Meirion Thomas. An email from one Professor Azeem Majeed of Imperial College, was sent to his employers, asking them to dissociate themselves from the articles and insinuating that local doctors would stop referring patients if he was not dealt with. The result was a fortnight's gardening leave and then a gagging order being imposed.
It's interesting to see Prof Majeed's attempts to defend himself on his twitter feed:
@Azeem_Majeed it was the kind of questions -which could even be seen as covertly veiled threats- though wasn't it?! @spectator @Freddygray31
— ndeaks (@ndeaks) January 1, 2015
He clearly has no idea that he has done anything wrong. His mind seems to struggle with the idea that his implied threats might have overstepped the mark.
Of course Majeed probably believes that Meirion Thomas's complaints are wrong or misguided; he probably believes that he is doing the right thing in trying to get him silenced. But why does a mere difference of opinion over the views of a middle manager in the NHS end up in a situation where we are discussing freedom of speech and what many would take to be outright fascism? I can't remember anything like this when working in big businesses in my younger days. In fact it's hard to imagine a business having anything other than a passing interest in the views of a middle manager of one of its suppliers.
What is it about the public sector that makes differences of opinion among well-meaning people lead to evil?