Keeping it quiet

20 Jan 2011 | News and features

Tony Blair’s appearance at the Iraq inquiry is a test of the competing principles of free expression and confidentiality. John Kampfner asks who should decide what the public hears?

Tony Blair would not appreciate being likened to Julian Assange. The feeling would, I am sure, be entirely mutual. Yet there is a link of sorts between these two figures, so controversial in their very different ways. It revolves around the notion of confidentiality.

The lead-up to the former prime minister’s second appearance before the Iraq enquiry has been dominated by the issue of private correspondence. The refusal by the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, to accede to the request of the committee chairman, Sir John Chilcot, to release the full musings of Blair and ex-president George Bush is based around a question similar to the one relating to the industrial dumping of US State Department documents. When are the musings of individual officials or politicians public documents and when are they private?

In both cases the competing principles of free expression and confidence stumble on each other, head to head. Assange and his allies argue their case mainly around public interest. The world, he insists, should know all the dirty deeds of dastardly diplomats. A more convincing argument in his favour might be that no serious organisation could remotely hope to keep a single email secret if circulated to 2.5m people, as was apparently the case with the US diplomatic service.

As for the Blair/Bush love-in, the case for secrecy is undermined by Blair’s own decision to publish some of the discussions in his memoirs. Furthermore, written memos between world leaders could surely not qualify as “private”. Telephone calls, presumably yes, but not the written word.

As the Daily Telegraph commented in a leader article this week:

The public deserves to get the fullest possible account of why this country went to war on the basis of what turned out to be misleading intelligence. For many, this remains the rawest of issues; if we are ever to put it behind us, the inquiry must be seen to be as thorough and open as possible. Reaching sensible conclusions almost eight years after the invasion began will be difficult enough without the inquiry being fettered in this way.

In the spirit, we are sure, of free expression, a furious Chilcot decided to publish his exchange of letters with O’Donnell. The committee chairman suggests, in quintessential mandarin style, that he would be “disappointed” if Blair proved less forthcoming in his evidence than in his book.

Otherwise, the Telegraph concludes, “it will appear that Mr Blair is happy to breach the confidentiality of office for a lucrative book deal, but not to inform the British public of the process that led him to send our troops to war”.

John Kampfner is the chief executive of Index on Censorship

Libel reform victory

7 Jan 2011 | News and features

Nick CleggIndex on Censorship celebrates Nick Clegg’s commitment to overhaul England’s much-criticised libel laws

The Libel Reform Campaign today welcomes Nick Clegg’s pledge to reform defamation laws that have made England an international “laughing stock”.

In a speech this morning at the Institute of Government in London, the deputy prime minister will reveal that the government will address all the issues raised by the Libel Reform Campaign in its report, Free Speech Is Not For Sale. A draft defamation bill to be published in the  spring will clarify the existing defences of fair comment and justification. It will protect scientists, academics and journalists speaking out in the public interest with a new statutory defence.

Index on Censorship Chief Executive John Kampfner commented:

This is welcome news for the libel reform campaign. The deputy prime minister has not only acknowledged the chilling effect of our defamation laws, but taken our demands for reform fully on board. We’re delighted that that in tone and detail the draft bill will go a long way to tackling the chill on free speech emanating from English courts.

Jonathan Heawood, director of English PEN said:

We warmly welcome the deputy prime minister’s pledge to reform our rusting libel laws. PEN members have been calling for reform for over sixty years, so we are delighted that the government is making this manifesto commitment a priority. If the government follows through on Mr Clegg’s encouraging promises, the law will achieve a much more sensible balance between free expression and reputation. MPs must now ensure that the draft Bill lives up to these commitments, and that the measures are not watered down to please the rich libel tourists who currently abuse our system.

Tracey Brown of Sense About Science said:

The current libel laws are squashing free debate and expression about science, medicine, local government, corruption, biography, and consumer safety. It is squashing many more people now that we have internet publishing and individual blogs taking on these subjects. We think the government understands that now, but we know that there are many who would like to keep this system for silencing or bankrupting critics, so the deputy prime minister’s commitment to change is very important.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK