It wouldn’t do to pry
The second piece from PEN committee members summer blog series- an opinion piece by our Luke O'Brien on such flaws in our laws. See more on the campaign for surveillance reform in the link below, and thanks to Luke for this great piece:
The principle of free expression has attackers on both sides of the ideological divide. Here I'll focus on the threat from Right and reaction, as plenty is made of the other side already.
The British Establishment permeates with a culture of what Orwell might call it wouldn't do to say-ism. There are certain things considered so important that it simply wouldn't do to share them with the hoi polli. These are things like “is the state monitoring my internet use?”, “what powers is my government ceding to corporations and others?” and “who is the state killing in my name?”
To take the last of those, the most important here and now: rather a lot. There's Menwith Hill in north England, a joint US-UK venture, where spies spy on us all to keep us safe from ourselves. (Anyone else notice how these special relationship projects always seem to end up on our side of the pond?) A component of this, we only managed to learn through Snowden, is supporting America's drone program. Brits at Medwith employ satellites to scan Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen searching for more terrorists for Obama to snuff. The fact that this campaign is itself, according to international law, terroristic doesn't interest many journalists or MPs (The Intercept and Labour's Fabian Hamilton are notable exceptions). And the detail that number of weddings brought to an abrupt end in this way is now in double figures is hardly worth thinking about.
And then there's the arms trade, shrouded in the usual secrecy of the private-meets-public-sphere synthesis. A subject so full of political pitfalls and contrived cynicism that it itself could be classified as a minefield. But, darting through swiftly, perhaps it's worth briefly mentioning that our government is currently breaking its own rules in arming Saudi Arabia as it tears through Yemen? (Not that you would know.)
Phew, made it. This next example is more personal and obscure, but just as demonstrative of censorship in this country and how it favours the Establishment.
I once knew someone who had served in Rhodesia. They were commandos and their targets were – as they always are – terrorists. This, by his own admission, simply meant adult males. The nature of the country being what it is, targeted strikes were downright risky (who'd a guessed?). So they were ordered to poison village wells. They waited and watched, apparently it was always the same: children fell to cramps and sickness, and then their mothers did. By the time the “terrorist's” had figured out they were in the midst of battle, their sons and daughters – far too young to understand the difference between Rhodesia and Zimbabwe – had expelled their internal organs.
Seeking atonement, he sought to make public what he did in the service of Queen and Country, through memoir. This rather modest proposal was shot down by the security services, citing national interest.
Here's a story of mass murder carried out by our state not yet properly told. Not yet allowed to be. If you do happen to buy the line about “national interest”, I have to ask what exactly do you mean? Whose interests are we talking about?
The real reason is it may go some way to doing what Wilfred Owen's poetry did so well: stripping its readers of their patriotic assumptions. Making blimps question that least responsible of all the classes – the governing class. It becomes difficult to maintain the narrative that Empire exists in order to propagate good values and even better manners when confronted with the bloodied actualities. Reality can be stubborn like that.
How many other cases have been denied their time in the courts of law and public opinion because of this shady excuse? From MI5 participation in the murder of an elderly CND activist to Met painting a south London car park with Daniel Morgan's cortex. Anybody who knows anything about anything in the Westminster bubble knows about these cases, and that almost definitely goes for some leading journalists too. So who has set the Shtum Order? Or perhaps the pack just knows without there needing to be a directive.
Sometimes, it just wouldn't do to pry.
https://www.englishpen.org/c…/uk-free-speech/dont-spy-on-us/
