Why Assange chose Sweden (and needs to avoid Britain)

Earlier this year, a professor of phonetics at Stockholm University addressed the MPs at the House of Commons. According to the Daily Telegraph,

‘Francisco Lacerda, Professor of Phonetics at Stockholm University, questioned the effectiveness of the voice risk analysis (VRA) system that is being trialled by the Government as part of a crackdown on welfare fraud.

The academic paper was withdrawn by the publisher after legal action was taken by the company behind the technology.

Speaking after he addressed MPs at the House of Commons today, Prof Lacerda said the fear of a writ could lead to important research being suppressed.

”Either we will see cases like mine where something has been published and we have actions or threats after publication, or even worse the challenging research never sees the light of day,” he said.

In 2007 he coauthored a paper entitled ”Charlatanry in Forensic Speech Science” that criticised the technology made by Nemesysco, an Israeli company.

But the paper was withdrawn after lawyers for the company threatened to sue’(1).

I would imagine that Lacerda must have been astonished to discover that it is so easy to engage in what in my opinion amounts to a form of censorship. But Britain’s libel laws mean that virtually all that it takes is a letter from a solicitor threatening legal action. Unless the target of censorship is part of an institution with deep pockets and a determination to defend freedom of speech, anyone seeking to suppress uncomfortable information has to do little more than send an email threatening legal action to a bloghost, a journal, or a book publisher.

As has been noted by journalists in the UK, Britain’s libel laws do not just apply to Britain. According to George Monbiot, ‘Such is the reach and severity of Mr Justice Eady’s [Britain's senior libel judge's] illiberal rulings that four states [in the U.S.] have so far passed what are, in effect, Eady laws, and Congress is currently considering a federal bill whose purpose is to defend US citizens from his judgments, and the English law he interprets. The Eady laws arise from his encouragement of libel tourism: allowing cases with only the most tenuous connection with this country to be heard in London, and using them to stamp on free speech all over the world’(2).

This and other bloggers should know. Last January, four posts in this blog were taken down  (they have subsequently been republished) after the legal department of the University of Liverpool objected to some passages which linked Howard Newby, the university’s vice-chancellor, to a private training firm which went into administration in 2008. In my view, the passages in question for the most part did little more than echo information disseminated by Private Eye in a piece which it had published almost three years earlier, and which generated a scandal at Newby’s former university. (For a full account of what happened, see When the Exchange of Knowledge is Threatened. See also my Financial Scandal, Corruption, and Censorship series). Thanks to Britain’s libel laws, WordPress, which I take to be very keen to defend the freedom of speech of its bloggers, evidently felt that it had no option but to comply with the lawyers’ orders. It was as if the matter had gone to court, and a judgement passed. The lawyers were effectively allowed to act as prosecutors, judge, and jury. Alas, the attempt backfired when it became known in higher education and internet circles that one of Britain’s more reputable universities was effectively trying to stop the publication of posts in an academic blog. Other more widely-read blogs which were also targeted as part of the action generated an even bigger scandal.

These and a growing number of cases like Lacerda’s help to explain why WikiLeaks chose Sweden as the site in which to try to locate at least some of its servers. Swedish publishing laws reportedly go a long way in protecting whistleblowers. The Nordic country’s democratic tradition has made its policy-makers aware of the importance of maintaining a space in which people can speak out against acts of corruption, and presumably all manner of abuses of power by members of public and private institutions. It seems that Swedish legislation would protect Julian Assange and the rest of the people running WikiLeaks from the kind of persecution by ostensibly legal means that they might face if their servers were located elsewhere.

It will be interesting to see, beyond the legal process that Assange might now face, whether Sweden does prove to be a safe bet for WikiLeaks. One interpretation of at least one of the unfounded accusations in Sweden is that the forces of darkness are trying, by any means, to stop Assange from benefiting from Sweden’s freedom of speech. I expect that we will shortly be seeing that this case will take a number of unexpected twists and turns.

Here in Britain, I would note that the Liberal Democrats, and even the Tories made loud noises before and after the elections about addressing our critical deficit in civil liberties. Some steps have been taken, or are supposedly in the process of being taken, at the behest of the Liberal Democrats. I have, however, as yet to hear that our draconian libel laws will be extensively modified, let alone repealed and rewritten, as they need to be. Is this another area in which Dem Tories have had a change of heart? If so, the politicians will not be able to blaim the alleged ‘bond vigilantes’ that have been so conveniently employed to justify the rest of the Liberal Democrats’ u-turns vis-a-vis so-called ‘fiscal austerity’.

By way of a postscript: Craig Murray, a former British ambassador who has himself been the target of censorship, has noted that Assange has been awarded the ‘Sam Adams Award for Integrity’, an award which is judged by ‘a group of retired senior US military and intelligence personnel, and past winners. This year the award to Julian Assange was unanimous.’

References

1) ‘English libel laws threatening freedom of speech, says Swedish scientist’, in Daily Telegraph, 12 March 2010, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7422273/English-libel-laws-threatening-freedom-of-speech-says-Swedish-scientist.html, accessed 22 August 2010.

2) G. Monbiot ‘How our senior libel law judge stamps on free speech—all over the world’ in the Guardian, 19 October 2009, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/19/eady-libel-tourism-free-speech, accessed 22 August 2010.

These Liberals are starting to look like Neoliberals

Less than a day after a judge effectively tried to remove our right to go on strike, Nick Clegg declared that he would push through the most radical changes to British democracy in 200 years. Alas, Clegg, like the rest of the Liberal Democrats, said nothing about the implications for democracy of Judge Mr Justice McCombe’s extraordinary judgment, which removed at a stroke the BA cabin crews’ right to strike: the union allegedly failed to convey to its members that 11 ballots had been spoiled. Thanks to two of the three members of the panel that considered the appeal, the outrageous judgment has been revoked, and the BA cabin crew will be allowed to strike.

I’ve scanned the news for a reaction on the part of the ‘radical’ Clegg, and can find no statement that celebrates the outcome of the Unite union appeal. It might be argued that no politician would do that (what with thousands of passengers, including my brother, potentially left stranded). Then again, Clegg seemed quite happy to defend the courts’ decision not to deport the alleged Al-Qaida activist.

In my opinion, Mr Justice McCombe’s decision was the equivalent of taking the spoiled ballots and shoving them up the nether regions of Britain’s working classes. I find it almost as extraordinary—and just as worrisome—that one of the three judges of the appeal panel was willing to argue that the decision was a just one. It speaks volumes of the direction that Britain is headed that two out of the four judges that considered the issue were willing to back ‘Brutish’ Airways over what the airline itself described as a technicality. In my view, it is difficult not to conclude that in this country, as in Spain—witness what has happened to Judge Baltasar Garzón, who is being pursued by fascists with the help of a right-wing supreme court judge—at least some of the judges are now playing an explicitly ideological, and right-wing role. Perhaps what many regard as the union-busting Willy Walsh will have been gloating over his lawyers’ initial success; with a legal system like ours, who needs Lib-Tories (or as I will call them henceforth, the ToryLibs)?

As if this were not enough, it has now been revealed that the ostensibly critical Vince Cable—the David who promised to take on the banking Goliaths—is intent on privatising the Royal Mail. What the Prince of Darkness could not achieve, Cable and the Tories will: the already tattered service will be split into yet more parts, and in an extraordinarily cynical gesture, the ToryLibs will offer to give the Royal Mail’s beleaguered workers a share of whatever is left. Note that this proposal was actually in the Liberal Democrats manifesto; it is not a caving in to Tory policy.

The upshot is that, contrary to what some of us would have believed as little as two weeks ago, a parallel can now be drawn between the careers of Vince Cable and Gordon Brown. Both politicians wrote essays in the famous The Red Paper on Scotland, which was published in 1975. (Cable’s essay was titled ‘Glasgow: Area of Need’, and in one passage, he stated that ‘It is a reasonable working hypothesis that most of Glasgow’s social problems can be related back to unemployment, job instability and an unbalanced occupational structure’. Does he believe that privatising Royal Mail will lead to employment, job stability, and a balanced occupational structure?) Now both politicians have now demonstrated that they are quite ready to betray the principles of progressive politics which they not only held back in the 1970s, but which both still claim to represent.

Before the elections, I was convinced that the worst possible outcome would be an outright Tory victory. I am starting to think that the coalition is worse, indeed, possibly far worse. The Tories will now be able to hide behind the apparent liberalism of the Lib Dems, even as the Lib Dems aid and abet what will be yet another velvet claw-like stage in the advance of neoliberalism. The mild John Major introduced legislation that was far more brutal than anything that Thatcher ever managed, and New Labour did the same again. How much further will the ToryLibs take us in the same direction?

Ken Loach rightly noted in this week’s Guardian that he thinks that ‘…we’ve got the real British ruling class back in power. Very rich white men with old money. This is the real face of the ruling class –very nuanced, very urbane, very smooth, and we shall see how very ruthless they are’.

Full body scanners are recipe for abuse

We didn’t have to wait long, did we?

This blogger is no fan of the Murdoch press. Anything that appears in The Sun, The Times or any other of the Murdoch family titles must be read with great scepticism. Here is, however, one story that was brought to my attention via an email provider, which, if true, returns us to the issues this (and many other blogs) have raised about the so-called ‘full body scanners’ in Manchester, Heathrow and other British airports:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2904943/Airport-security-guard-John-Laker-ogled-woman-colleague-in-body-scanner.html

If true, this story would appear to provide evidence with respect to an issue that airport operators, and the New Labour government, have tried sweep under the carpet (or is it our clothes): that full body scanners generate graphic images that are ripe for abuse. As many of us feared, there are bound to be operators, male or female, who salivate, unseen, as they look at detailed pictures of our nakedness. Some are apparently willing to go further and to make comments. What else are they willing to do?

Just to be clear: nakedness, per se, is not the issue. All of us reached this increasingly neoliberal world without clothes. What is at issue is that, as we left our mothers’ wombs,  we were not ‘full body scanned’ by someone drooling in the name of the so-called ‘war on terror’.

If one operator can take advantage of a colleague with this technology, then we have to assume that s/he could, would do the same with people s/he doesn’t know. Rather more disturbingly, a more astute operator would take advantage of the system in a way that wouldn’t get her/himself caught in the act.

The implications are clear: there are more and more incentives for us not to fly in or out of Britain’s airports. Good for the planet, and for those who live around Britain’s crazily congested airports. Bad for those bureaucrats and airline owners who think that passengers will take anything that’s thrown at them. Before long we will have Israeli levels of security in our airports—with all of the issues that have recently come up vis-à-vis that securistate.

See also Manchester Airport: Take your clothes off so that we don’t have to touch you.

What really did happen to David Kelly?

A very short post to say that there are weeks in politics when one senses that there is something akin to a telluric movement about to take place, one which, left uncontrolled or managed badly by the powers that be, can lead to the most sudden, and spectacular transformations in the lie of the political land.

There is, of course, no pun intended in the last expression. That said, we may be about to witness a chain of revelations that may yet show how far members of you know who’s government were prepared to go in order to cover their tracks regarding the legality of the Iraq War.

If you still don’t know what I’m writing about, watch out for the news concerning the incredible fact that the Hutton Enquiry closed the medical records concerning David Kelly’s death for 70, yes seven-oh years. Here is a quote from the Guardian that suggests that there is suddenly a veritable crescendo of suspicion growing around Kelly’s very strange death.

“Lord Hutton’s decision to classify documents about the death of Dr David Kelly is likely to face a legal challenge amid claims by experts that there are increasing grounds to question the inquiry’s verdict of suicide. The Hutton inquiry, which reported in 2004 that Kelly’s death was suicide after he cut an artery in his wrist, has come under scrutiny from doctors who claim the medical account is improbable. Five doctors who made an application to the Oxford coroner to have the inquest reopened have been told Lord Hutton made a ruling in 2003 to keep medical reports and photographs closed for 70 years. “This is a revelation,” said Michael Powers QC, a former assistant coroner and expert in coronial law. “I can’t think of anything that would justify these documents being treated any differently.”

EcoLogics, a significant swathe of the country, and perhaps even Michael Powers himself, most certainly can.

Is authoritarianism on ebb in the UK?

Updated 24 November 2009 (scroll the bottom of the post to see latest updates)

If you read this article in the Independent, you might come away feeling relieved that the great tide of authoritarianism that has characterised New Labour’s years in power is starting to ebb. Under the headline “Ministers cancel ‘Big Brother’ database”, the paper says that ‘Plans to store information about every phone call, email and internet visit in the United Kingdom have in effect been abandoned by the Government’, and that the decision to postpone further legislation could be ‘to kill off the plans for years.’

If, however, you read the Telegraph, a rather different picture emerges. Under the headline “State to ‘spy’ on every phone call, email and web search’, that paper suggests that

All telecoms companies and internet service providers will be required by law to keep a record of every customer’s personal communications, showing who they have contacted, when and where, as well as the websites they have visited.[...] Despite widespread opposition to the increasing amount of surveillance in Britain, 653 public bodies will be given access to the information, including police, local councils, the Financial Services Authority, the ambulance service, fire authorities and even prison governors.[...] They will not require the permission of a judge or a magistrate to obtain the information, but simply the authorisation of a senior police officer or the equivalent of a deputy head of department at a local authority.

Which version of events is the correct one? EcoLogics suspects that both papers are right. New Labour probably has decided to shelve plans for a single database, reluctantly realising, perhaps, that it’s a vote looser. Perhaps senior New Labour politicians must be having quiet talks with the companies lobbying hardest for the database (this blogger wonders if Entrust and other digital security corporations are behind the whole scheme), explaining that they’re very sorry but it isn’t feasible to deliver the promised contracts, at least not yet. At the same time, the politicians may be explaining to Britain’s increasingly deliberative security services that the single database isn’t that great a loss because the information will be there, awaiting to be used, in the databases of private corporations like BT or Virgin. Now isn’t that reassuring?

Even as the two papers make headlines on this subject, if you read the BBC news, you will find out that Jack Straw has got his way with New Labour plans to replace public enquiries with secret inquests. The conclusion has to be that, if anything, that tide of New Labour authoritarianism is in full flow.

By the way, the ‘Part II’ in the title of this post is a reference to the earlier The New Labour Modus Operandi.

Update 24 November 2009: The news media are devoting headlines to the fact that a former police officer has denounced the police for deliberately arresting people in order to obtain their DNA, a policy which is not only illegal, but has had the effect of increasing the proportion of DNA samples taken from ethnic minorities, relative to their actual numbers in civil society. For an account of this practice, which would confirm the existence of a New Labour-Police conspiracy to introduce a universal DNA sample by the back door, see this Reuters account.