Another new dimension of the government taking back control became apparent over the weekend. As the Guardian has reported, the government has proposed that:
Anyone that published an intelligence- or foreign affairs-related story based on a leak [sh]ould be open to criminal charges. Reporters, as well as the whistleblowers whose stories they tell, would be under threat of sentences of up to 14 years, regardless of the public interest and even if there were no likelihood of damage.
I caused controversy last week by suggesting that I was a libertarian. I feel my use of the term wholly justified in the face of such proposals that will destroy yet more of our right to free speech. Of course those who oppose moves such as this are libertarian: what is bizarre is that such suggestions are coming from a government that has such a high approval rating amongst those on the right who use that term.
Democracy only thrives when it is cherished. And it can only be effective when people know what is happening. It is vital that the press have the right to report the vast majority of what is going on in government (I accept that there can be national security issues and certain court imposed restrictions on reporting to protect individuals and the outcome of cases). To try to restrict this freedom so that, for example, the government's own breaches of the law cannot be reported is to move the law into the bounds of tyranny.
Three thoughts. First, is this what taking back control was meant to mean?
Second, this makes alternatives voices even more important.
Third, I hope their Lordships make hell with this: I wish I could see Labour doing so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The attack on whistleblowers is deplorable, and entirely in keeping with the May ethos.
The attack on journalism has a new and rather worrying element: it singles out economic information and economic damage.
Clearly the ‘remoaners’ are unpopular; but I can see this being used on anyone who publishes unflattering statistics on the economic benefits of a public-private sector partnership – and that material already has a ‘commercial confidentiality’ exemption from the Freedom of Information Act.
I think we just saw the end of the ‘Public Interest’ defence.
Agreed
For me, this illustrates clearly May(hem) feels she has much to hide. Incidentally, do we know if there’s any definition of reporting involved? If you blog about these matters, or I include mention in my (now international) newsletter after seeing a report, are we then defined as reporters too and so liable to the 14 years in question?
We may be…
From the report in the Guardian and their analysis section you certainly would be.
Does reading or sharing journalism on The Intercept qualify? I know a young European academic who decided not to apply for work in the USA because he read The Intercept.
Following Bill Kruse, I’m very worried that this is something of a first shot proposing an extreme position that will later be ‘softened’ with ‘sensible amendments’ to allow ‘the press’ various protections that won’t be available to citizen journalists, whistle-blowers or anyone outside the corporate media.
Agreed
Interesting to read the background to this (the Snowden leaks) and then consider where that takes us with a government led by a person whose clearly a control freak and a cabinet that never ceases to put ideology above all else. Additionally, I saw a report at the weekend that Russia may “gift” Snowden to the US – presumably in response to a weakening of sanctions. God help him if that happens now we have Trump in power.
There’s very little doubt that on both sides of the Atlantic we’re already headed into an increasingly oppressive period of authoritarian populism. In the US fear of foreigners (mostly muslims) is being used to drive it, here immigration more generally, but I’ve no doubt that the various disasters that will unfold as Brexit takes hold will also be used as the basis for further crackdowns. Sadly, I think large numbers of people in the US and UK are not that bothered. Democracy as practiced since 1979 has not served them well, and has been a positive disaster in the UK since 2010. Consequently, if a parliamentary or presidential dictatorship promises them a better life – as is the case with both Trumpism and Brexit – then what does it matter if the flip side is the end of democracy as it’s been understood since the advent of the universal franchise.
In the US at least they have a constitution to turn to for protection – though in truth that’s done little to protect their democracy from becoming the plaything of big business and the 1%. In the UK we have to rely on parliament and after the Article 50 farce of the past two weeks – superbly deconstructed by Andrew Rawnsley at the weekend – we’ve all seen with our own eyes that in a time of approaching crisis parliament is no protection at all.
Rawnsley got this one right
@Ivan. Agreed. “people in the US and Uk are not that bothered”, its about workers’s education. I know you and I have both lectured in The Workers’ Educational Association (WEA). Myself in the 70s. Workers and the Labour Movement have been atomised, I and you were brought up in working class communities, mine a mining and tinplate valley and many workers were self or group educated, through the Union, Institutes, workers’ associations and public meetings. Nowdays I agree with Ivan ‘they’ are not bothered to get self-educated. Capitalism has stamped out the time people have available or more importantly the time people perceive is available, and seem to have lost the spirit of association to exert their influence through association – not atomised internet denizens. BTW I still go to public meetings, lecture in schools and demos – I believe in associations, other than the cabled variety.
Fascinating
Just discussing some of those themes with my son….
Given the fact that we have been selling the Saudi’s weapons that seem to have been used in the the horrific but under-reported events in Yemen I don’t think there is any hint of over-reaction here at all.
What other escapades is this Government planning I wonder? What else are they wanting to subdue or hide?
A key question is whether the Labour party will oppose these measures properly or whether it will offer just token resistance as it did with the Investigatory Powers Act 2016? I’m surprised that Labour has been so supine on this issue. There are elements in the right of the party (like Tony Blair) who are gung-ho on national security and see civil liberties as woolly liberal stuff, but I’m surprised about Jeremy Corbyn, because his mentor Tony Benn was always very worried about the erosion of civil liberties. Initially I’d just presumed that Corbyn was a straight-down-the-line Bennite but Labour’s failings on the IPA suggest that he may have different priorities.