4 Feb 2022 | News and features, United Kingdom, Volume 50.04 Winter 2021, Volume 50.04 Winter 2021 Extras
In traditional British English, the word “corruption” is an irregular noun. This grammatical oddity conjugates thus: I am helping my friends, you are involved in unethical practices, he is engaging in misconduct in public life, a foreigner is guilty of corruption.
This is, in my experience, unique. In other countries I have written about, politicians regularly accuse opponents of corruption, while of course denying it themselves. In Britain, however, we resort to euphemisms: cronyism, paid lobbying, cash-for-questions, sleaze. I do not know anywhere else that seems so determined to insist that corruption is alien to its traditions that it has invented a parallel vocabulary to describe how people abuse their powers.
This is a problem because, by linguistically cutting itself off from the global mainstream, Britain has also stopped itself from learning how other countries have tackled corruption. If British politicians are not corrupt, what relevance does the prosecution of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy have; or the congressional investigation into Donald Trump; or the journalistic investigations into Vladimir Putin?
Last autumn, however, thanks to an explosion of allegations, something appears to have changed. In the last six months alone we’ve heard about ministers creating a special “VIP lane” to allow their contacts to bid for Covid-19-related contracts without the paperwork imposed on ordinary bidders; about MPs lobbying ministers on behalf of private clients; about party donors receiving peerages in exchange for large donations; about ministers exploiting a loophole in regulations to avoid having to tell the public who’s been paying for their holidays; about foreign governments paying for MPs’ groups to get around lobbying restrictions.
Opposition parties are now freely using the c-word to describe ministers’ behaviour. In the media, even a legal commentator as sober as David Allen Green of the Financial Times has argued that corruption is the best term to describe the assault on the integrity of British institutions staged by Boris Johnson’s government.
It’s too early to say whether this will be a short-term political phenomenon, or whether it’s the start of a realisation that corruption isn’t some foreign disease like rabies kept out of Britain by the English Channel. But this awareness is certainly spreading into other spheres. One law enforcement source recently told me that investigators were starting to “turn over the corruption rock to see what’s underneath”. These are baby steps, but babies grow bigger, and perhaps this will too.
It’s hard to overstate how important it could be if Brits realised they’re not immune to corruption and began to treat it as the threat to civilisation that it is. London has, for decades, been the most popular adopted home for the world’s crooks and thieves and, thanks to Britain’s traditional reluctance to label its own as corrupt, they have been able to enjoy the hospitality of the city unchallenged. By gifting small fractions of their stolen wealth to universities, galleries, charities and – sometimes – even politicians, they have become “philanthropists”, “entrepreneurs” or “socialites”. Journalists are then unable to write the truth about them, because it’s defamatory to be rude about a philanthropist. And that means financial institutions have been happy to move their money around, because – well – what reason would they have not to?
Britain has acted as a huge loophole through which corrupt money has poured into the global economy; blocking that hole is the biggest service Brits could do for the world. I am hopeful that the transformation of “corruption” into a word that can describe the behaviour of British politicians as well as foreigners, and the recognition that this blight affects us as much as anyone, is a step towards that.
28 Jan 2022 | News and features, United Kingdom
Earlier this month the UK House of Lords voted down a series of measures in the government’s Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill, many of which were introduced at the last minute without the chance for debate. These included the power to stop and search anyone at a protest (or simply passing by a protest) without the need for reasonable suspicion. The new measures would also have allowed the courts to ban people from attending protests in future even if they hadn’t been convicted of any offences in the past. These are what are technically described as “precautionary powers”, usually reserved for counter-terrorism and serious crime rather than peaceful protest. Police would also have been able to intervene if protests were judged to be too loud. Despite its failure at this stage of the legislative process, the government has made it clear it intends to reintroduce these draconian proposals.
The day after the government defeat a guest appeared on the BBC’s flagship Today programme to express his opposition to the measures:
“What you are doing with some of these powers,” he explained, “is removing from people who may not feel there is much they can do to influence government policy, the power even to make a lot of noise. And you are treating gatherings and marches as crime scenes rather than occasions for the legitimate exercise of free speech or the freedom to assemble.”
These are not the words of a representative from one of the groups targeted by the legislation (Extinction Rebellion or Insulate Britain) nor do they come from a civil rights organisation such as Liberty. The speaker was Lord Anderson of Ipswich KBE QC, the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation who sits as a crossbench peer, which means he is not aligned to any political party. He even voted for some of the proposals, including a measure to stop people locking themselves to street furniture or interfering with key national infrastructure. It is hard to imagine a more establishment figure and the government should listen when he accuses them of turning protests into crime scenes. Even former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Hogan-Howe, who voted with the government, made the point that many of the offences in the bill are covered by existing legislation.
Although there have been public demonstrations against the Policing Bill, most notably in Bristol, public and media attention has understandably been elsewhere during the pandemic. The government’s own issues with potential law breaking in Downing Street has provided a more recent distraction.
But the Policing Bill is not the only authoritarian weapon in this government’s armoury. Index has warned before about proposals for a new Official Secrets Act that will increase maximum sentences for unauthorised leaks and judge some journalistic disclosures as more serious than espionage. The government’s consultation document on the reform makes this abundantly clear: “there are cases where an unauthorised disclosure may be as, or more, serious in terms of intent and/or damage.”
Last month, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab announced a root and branch overhaul of the Human Rights Act, the centrepiece of progressive reforms from the New Labour era. This will include an erosion of the “positive obligations” on public bodies to protect human rights, which should concern anyone who has ever had reason to question the actions of the police. Meanwhile, under the measures of the Electoral Integrity Bill voters will be obliged to show photographic ID at polling stations despite the low levels of fraud and the large numbers of people on low incomes who don’t possess a driving licence or a passport.
Add to this an increasingly punitive approach to asylum seekers and benefit claimants and it is possible to argue that we are witnessing the most authoritarian British government since the Second World War.
21 Jan 2022 | Afghanistan, China, Kazakhstan, Opinion, Russia, Ruth's blog, United Kingdom, United States
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson looks down at the podium during a media briefing in Downing Street. Photo: Justin Tallis/PA Wire/PA Images
It should surprise no-one that I am a political geek. I love politics. I love the cut and thrust of debate. I love the moments of high drama and the intrigue. Most of all I love the fact that genuine good can be done. That people’s lives can be made just a little easier by the power of our collective democracy.
So you’d assume that I would have relished the events of the UK Parliament this week. And I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to being completely obsessed with the minutiae of the debate around Partygate and the drama of the precarious position of the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP as he seeks to survive the biggest political crisis of his premiership.
But I’m also angry. The British Government has been distracted for weeks, caught in a political crisis of their own making about whether or not the Prime Minister knowingly broke his own Covid-19 regulations. While the political establishment awaits a report from a senior civil servant to clarify what was, or wasn’t, happening behind the doors of Number 10, important issues are being sidelined or ignored and people are suffering.
This week the British Parliament held vital debates on the genocide of the Uighurs and the use of the British legal system to silence activists and journalists. Both debates passed broadly without comment or wider notice.
The Russian Federation is threatening the sovereign status of a democratic ally, Ukraine, on an hourly basis.
Biden has marked his first year in office.
52,581 people have died of Covid.
Protestors in Kazakhstan are being threatened with death if they continue to protest against the government, with 10,000 already arrested and 225 killed by the authorities.
23 million people in Afghanistan are experiencing extreme hunger as the Taliban starts attacking women activists.
These are some of the heartbreaking and terrifying realities which are happening around the world. These are the issues that should have dominated our news agenda this week, along with a cost of living crisis, a plan to deliver net zero and attacks on free expression around the world.
Index will continue to fight for these issues to be heard. For the voices of the persecuted to be recognised. While some of our leaders focus on domestic intrigue we’ll keep fighting for those that don’t have a voice.
14 Jan 2022 | Legal action against journalists, News and features, United Kingdom
The undersigned organisations reiterate their support for award-winning journalist and author, Carole Cadwalladr, who is facing a week-long defamation trial in London this week. Cadwalladr, who works for the Guardian Media Group in the UK, is being sued as an individual by millionaire businessman and political donor Arron Banks, best known for his role as co-founder of the 2016 Brexit campaign Leave.EU.
Banks originally filed four claims against Cadwalladr in July 2019, two of which he dropped in January 2020 after the judge found them to be “far-fetched and divorced from the specific context in which those words were used”. The remaining claims relate to Cadwalladr’s 2019 TED Talk, “Facebook’s Role in Brexit – and the Threat to Democracy” and a Twitter post linking to the TED Talk.
“When this lawsuit was filed more than two years ago, several organisations came together to call this legal action out as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), aimed at intimidating and silencing Cadwalladr. We today reaffirm this characterisation and unreservedly reiterate our support for Cadwalladr as she continues to defend her public interest work,” the organisations said.
SLAPPs abuse the law in order to intimidate and silence public watchdogs from speaking out on matters of public interest. Banks is pursuing legal action against Cadwalladr as an individual, rather than pursuing her media outlet in which the contested claims were originally made. Due to the expensive nature of the process in England, Cadwalladr has had to raise funds for her legal defence through crowdfunding. She has so far raised more than half a million pounds.
“We, once again, urge the UK government to consider measures, including legislative reforms, that would protect journalists and others working in the public interest from being subject to abusive legal actions intended to stifle public debate,” the organisations concluded. “Our democracy relies on the ability to hold power to account.”
Representatives from several of the undersigned organisations will be in attendance at the High Court this week to monitor proceedings.
Signed:
Index on Censorship
ARTICLE 19
Association of European Journalists
Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland (CFoIS)
Committee to Protect Journalists
English PEN
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
IFEX
International Press Institute (IPI)
Justice for Journalists Foundation
Mighty Earth
Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)
PEN International
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Society of Journalists
Spotlight on Corruption
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
Whistleblowing International Network
