This morning I logged onto the website of the internationally renowned human rights campaign group Amnesty International UK. They have an entire section devoted to “Censorship and Free Speech”. It is headed by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to seek, receive and impart information through any media and regardless of frontiers”. They had several articles focusing on the suppression of the press in countries ranging from Zimbabwe to Russia, Syria to Saudi Arabia. But strangely, a series of dawn raids on over two dozen journalists of the UK’s largest selling daily newspaper, and the formal arrest of five of them, did not appear to warrant a mention.
I then tried the website of that other well respected British human rights campaign group, Liberty. They also have an entire section on “Free Speech and Protest”. It is headed by the following quote from Theodore Roosevelt: “Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free”. But again, the arrest of five members of that supposedly free press here in the UK was not worthy of comment.
Finally, I phoned the out of hours press numbers of both organisations, but received only voicemail messages. A word of warning. Under no account allow your human rights to be violated outside of office hours.
Eventually I received a call from Amnesty. Had they, or were they planning, to make any statement on The Sun arrests? “I don’t know actually,” was the response. “Let me check and get back to you.” “I’ll find out” was the response I finally received from Liberty’s press officer.
Thanks. Could you both hurry? Because the country you’re based in is slowly, but surely, going insane.
On Saturday the British state began arresting journalists allegedly for making payments of a corrupt nature to the police and Crown employees but no one knows precisely what, if any, information those who were arrested had obtained. No charge has yet been laid and those arrested have been released on bail. But surely it would be unfair to assume that over the years, amongst the celebrity tittle-tattle, there was no stuff relating to botched or skewed police investigations or police corruption, incompetence in supplying troops in warzones, etc. These are all issues that have regularly been covered by The Sun, and every other newspaper, on the basis of information obtained from police and other sources who break confidences.
It’s important to stress that these arrests were not for hacking or blagging, but for journalists allegedly making corrupt payments – but at this stage the details are unclear. Actually, if Trevor Kavanagh’s piece in today’s Sun is accurate, journalists have been also been questioned over whether they bought police officers lunch, or even drinks.
Journalistic investigations that have benefited from inside information from the police include exposing the flaws in the initial Stephen Lawrence inquiry, and those which helped to overturn the erroneous conviction of the Guildford four and the Birmingham six.
Imagine for a second if, during the campaign to free those wrongly convicted, or to expose the grotesque failings of the Lawrence investigation, the newspapers supporting those campaigns had been raided, and the journalists working on those campaigns dragged in for questioning on how they obtained their information. There would have, rightly, been a national outcry. And, surely, organisations like Amnesty and Liberty would have been leading the charge.
But not today. Today, with one or two honorable exceptions, the liberal establishment is silent. A free press is a sacred right. So long as we, the liberal intelligentsia, approve of what those papers are writing.
On Saturday I expressed my concern at the arrests on Twitter. The response was staggering. If police officers want to pass on information in the public interest they should do so without payment, I was told. Well, yes, in an ideal world they should. But we don’t live in an ideal world, which is why we need investigative journalism in the first place. And if that journalism is dependent on those whose motives are pure as the driven snow then we’re going to be reading some very thin newspapers.
A second argument was that receiving payments was itself corrupt, and therefore the practice encouraged, rather than exposed, wrong-doing. So on that basis it would be wrong to pay a police officer to provide evidence of his colleagues taking pay-offs from drug-dealers, because that payment in itself would be immoral. With the practical result we would have lots of unhappy journalists but lots more very happy coke dealers.
The final argument was one of high principle. “They’ve broken the law. It’s as simple as that.” OK, let’s bang them up then. And presumably we should also then send the cops round to Yvette Cooper, Francis Maude, Oliver Letwin, David Willets, Vernon Coaker, Boris Johnson, Alastair Darling, Andy Burnham and Harriet Harman, all of whom have admitted smoking illegal substances.
The Leveson inquiry long ago passed beyond parody. But the ongoing police investigations are no laughing matter. The liberal left will laugh, of course; “Look at the Tory press getting its comeuppance”. But one day soon, that laughing will stop. Because anyone who thinks this is going to end with papers and organisations hostile to the progressive cause need their heads examining. Make no mistake. It won’t be long before the knock comes at our door. And when they do, there’ll be nobody standing in their way.
Just before I finished this piece Amnesty International finally got back. “Sorry,” they said, “this isn’t one for us”. OK. So if not you, who?









Comments
Clr Ralph Baldwin / February 13 2012 3:34pm
Dan Rule of Law has to be applied, the danger as you state is that this is driven by revenge by the police to scalp a few examples and possibly revenge for the expenses scandal to brow-beat the media.
Potentialy very dangerous for the "elite" more than for anyone else as what goes around comes around.
Nils Boray / February 13 2012 3:51pm
You're barking up the wrong tree here.
David C / February 13 2012 4:19pm
Well said Dan. It is shocking that there is no outrage that we are becoming a country where journalists are routinely arrested and imprisoned for trespasses committed whilst obtaining stories.
There is a clear message being transmitted to newspapers here. Just wait till they start on the internet.
And the BBC stands idly by, relishing the difficulties its competition finds itself in.
MMP / February 13 2012 4:22pm
Well said. The journos gloating in their ivory towers about exposing others are simply damaging their own profession. I sincerely hope the fall when it comes for them is a big one.
Without newspapers like The Sun Britain would be a much sorrier place than it already is.
People should remember why newspapers are there. They are the voice of the people and the brave ones always seek to right injustice.
The current witch-hunt is nothing short of disgusting. People at the top of their profession being arrested for doing their jobs. Not one of them will have taken a bung or a bribe for exposing wrong-doing during their careers.
Alex / February 13 2012 4:27pm
The arrests have nothing to do with free speech. They are about bribing public officials to give away confidential information, mostly the whereabouts of royalty.
Pentangelis / February 13 2012 4:36pm
Not at all surprised - Amnesty seems to pick and choose rather a lot.
Look at their response to the 'ethnic cleansing' in our own country (Dale Farm) to see just how spineless they are.
Thom / February 13 2012 4:37pm
Dan, in what circumstances might it be right for a journalist to be arrested? Where they have been suspected of breaking the law perhaps?
Paul Byrne / February 13 2012 4:42pm
Dan, they're not being arrested for expressing an opinion they're being arrested for potentially criminal practices, there's quite a big difference, this is not an attack on freedom of expression in this country.
More importantly it is far from the same as Russia, Syria, Saudi or Zimbabwe. These Sun journalists will be given the opportunity to defend themselves, the police will have to provide evidence and an independent body, the CPS, will decide whether to prosecute the case. No censorship has taken place, so AI are right to keep themselves out of it. I find it staggering that so many professional commentators can't tell the difference.
Richard Baron / February 13 2012 4:59pm
There is an obvious parallel in the heavy-handed arrest of Damien Green in November 2008. It was, of course, in the public interest to put the frighteners on anyone with a good source of leaks.
Monkey / February 13 2012 5:09pm
Suggesting the Sun should be protected by amnesty international is such a joke. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Thom / February 13 2012 5:24pm
Dan, in what circumstances might it be right for a journalist to be arrested? Where they have been suspected of breaking the law perhaps?
bob / February 13 2012 6:49pm
All a bit over the top. That's not to say that the police were not a little heavy handed but then plenty of people who are not journalists get the same treatment. So why the outrage - are journalists untouchable. Perhaps that's why they thought they were entitled to hack phones with impunity.
My first knee-jerk reaction to the news of the raids was to think that maybe journalists now know what it might be like to be door stepped and harassed
NickG / February 13 2012 7:25pm
Thanks for this piece Dan and very well said.
I'd always assumed that there was general agreement that a free press is essential to democracy.
Frightening to find that I've was wrong.
Peter Jukes / February 13 2012 7:56pm
As Orwell said in the Death of Literature, the threat to free speech in the UK comes from all powerful press barons more than jack booted policemen calling in the dead of night.
The metrics on press freedom in the UK are skewed more by ownership than police inattention to crime breaking.
Have you forgotten the Met ignored the contents of the Mulcaire files for five years?
Thomas Lambert / February 13 2012 8:59pm
This isn't anything to do with freedom of speech...its to do with breaking the law. Just because you are a journalist doesn't mean you can break the laws of the country; which we all have to abide by. I really don't believe the motivation of the journalists was to 'do right by the people' the reality is that journalist or editors, either want to make a name for them selves, advance their careers or just sell more papers.
If anything we should be worried journalists are not scrutinised more closely; yes you should test the systems, ask the questions and investigate the answers, but you shouldn't, and don't need to break the law to do it. There seem to be many other journalist, editors and paper who can manage to do this within the law.
How many people aren't surprised 'The Sun' journalists are involved?
Andrew Smith / February 13 2012 10:43pm
It seems clear to me that the political class have decided to severely limit free speech because they find it too intrusive into their incompetence and corrupt practices.
The political class believes it is entitled to rule over us whereas we thought we were to be governed. They do not intend to become accountable again, having torn that away from the public and neutered Parliament over the past 40 years.
Millsy / February 14 2012 7:09am
The likes of Liberty and the BBC will swing into action as soon as Guardian and Mirror journalists start getting arrested
Cllr. Mike Bridgeman / February 14 2012 8:24am
"And presumably we should also then send the cops round to Yvette Cooper, Francis Maude, Oliver Letwin, David Willets, Vernon Coaker, Boris Johnson, Alastair Darling, Andy Burnham and Harriet Harman, all of whom have admitted smoking illegal substances."
Without doubt they should be charged and if found guilty then made to pay all expenses.
Ancient Mariner / February 14 2012 8:38am
Why the dawn raids? Presumably, the alleged offenders would have got rid of any evidence by now? Surely it couldn't be the police covering their tracks to suppress any evidence that might incriminate them?Far be-it, from the appearance that I might be suggesting police corruption, merely asking the question?
TC / February 14 2012 9:21am
Have any of these journalist's civil rights actually been violated? If the police had evidence of bribery, surely they're allowed to make arrests. No-one's skull has been cracked, no-one's been refused a lawyer, and they're all allowed to go about their daily business as long as they turn up to plead their case in court.
We're not talking about people who are in trouble for exposing police corruption. We're talking about people who are accused of corrupting the police.
It's hardly Burma-level human rights abuses, is it?
Christoff Youngman / February 15 2012 12:05am
Thank goodness you're here to protect the Sun's freedom to, er, print pointless showbiz gossip.