Wikileaks

It’s been interesting to watch the "debate" about Wikileaks. It has basically been reduced to two positions – one where Wikileaks is good and must be protected. The other position is, of course, the opposite of that, namely that Wikileaks is bad and must be stopped. The fact that the extremes of the latter view have been expressed by the ever idiotic Sarah Palin is a good indicator of just how debased this “debate” is.

As always, reality is always slightly more complex than polemical debate positions would suggest. I believe that Wikileaks has done some good work, particularly in showing the cost of prosecuting the war on terror. Have the leaks jeopardised the lives of soldiers? Possibly – but nowhere near as much as the decision to put them into a war zone in the first place. And the whole Cablegate thing really is a load of stuff and nonsense – all it has done is show the terminally naïve that diplomats are not always diplomatic behind each other’s backs. Thus far, there has been nothing damaging enough to provoke the sort of hysterical reaction towards Wikileaks by some. Embarrassing governments is not in itself a bad thing; in fact, it could be argued that in a democracy it is a very positive thing.

Of course, the fact that nothing damaging has been released so far doesn’t mean that they won't release such material in the future. I do wonder what sort of editorial control Wikileaks has – if it has any at all. But that’s something for the future. In the here and now, I would like to point out that the reactions of the pro-Wikileaks brigade to the accusations against Julian Assange are just as hysterical and tribal as the reactions to Wikileaks of its detractors. Yes, the timing does seem a little suspect but in all honesty does anyone actually know – other than the accuser(s) and the accused – whether a crime actually took place? I find that I literally can’t comment because I just plain don’t know – but surely most other people watching this saga unfold are in exactly the same position as me?

Besides, even if Assange is eventually found guilty (and in a credible display of justice, not in a stitch up kind of way) then what impact does, and indeed should, this have on the work undertaken by Wikileaks? Surely the output of that organisation should be judged on, well, the content of that output? I mean, an individual’s non-criminal actions can be viewed in such a way as to make them distinct from any crimes they do commit. Thus, Rosemary’s Baby remains a great film despite the reprehensible crime of its director.

The point I’m trying to make is that Wikileaks itself is neither good nor bad. The best way to assess it is to watch what it brings into the public domain, and judge it based on that. The content it places in the public domain then can – and should – be assessed, debated and dissected in through public debate. But that debate is only going to be meaningful if we can conduct it in a slightly more critical way than in broad, binary terms of “good” versus “bad”.

I must be missing something...

...because I really can't figure out why this man has been arrested. Listing MPs he claimed voted for the Iraq War can't be a crime - isn't that information publicly anyway? Isn't it on a number of different websites and contained in public documents like Hansard?

I suppose it must be something to do with what he put with the list of MPs because otherwise there's surely no cause to arrest someone for publishing information that is already in the public domain, and has been for over half a decade. The alternative is that we've drifted into being a totalitarian shithole far quicker than I ever anticipated, even in my most cynical moments...

Tony Blair admits mistakes

In amongst all the self-serving detritus that one might expect from an interview with Tony Blair, there are a couple of examples of what I never thought would come from the mouth of that arrogant arse - he actually admits his mistakes. But before we get too excited, let's consider what he actually has to say.

First up, fox-hunting. The Guardian challenges him on whether it was a mistake:

"I think yes on balance it was in the end. Its not that I particularly like hunting or have ever engaged in it or would. I didn't quite understand, and I reproach myself for this, that for a group of people in our society in the countryside this was a fundamental part of their way of life." Blair accepts that the ban was "not one of my finest policy moments".

I'm prepared to agree with Blair on everything he says here; I don't like fox-hunting either (in fact I find it pretty sickening) but for others, it is an important part of their lives and while I struggle to understand why, I don't think it should be banned. To do so is draconian; it represents a tyranny of the majority (assuming, of course, that a majority actually support a ban on fox-hunting). It should never have been passed as a law.

But given Blair himself now accepts this, will we see him campaigning to have his mistake rectified and the ban rescinded? I'm not going to be holding by breath on that one.

The second mistake is far more revealing of Blair and his attitude to politics. On the Freedom of Information Act:

"It's not practical for government," he says. "If you are trying to take a difficult decision and you're weighing up the pros and cons, you have frank conversations. Everybody knows this in their walk of life. Whether you are in business – or running a newspaper – there are conversations you want to have preliminary to taking a decision that are frank .

"And if those conversations then are put out in a published form that afterwards are liable to be highlighted in particular ways, you are going to be very cautious. That's why it's not a sensible thing."

Brilliant. So the people politicians represent should be denied the freedom to scrutinise them and understand the way in which they came to various decisions because it might be a bit embarrassing for those politicians. What absolute, arrogant wank. The point of government is not to operate in such a way that it avoids potential future embarrassment for politicians; good government involves operating in such a way that it is always doing the best for its people, and as such it should always be able to stand up to even the closest of scrutiny.

Blair shows that for him, government was not about working in the interests of the people, but rather in winning cheap, crowd-pleasing victories (such as through banning fox-hunting) and in making the process of government more convenient for those in power rather than those being governed. His ideas are fundamentally arrogant, and it is this arrogance that has ensured that his legacy is one of failure. He could never succeed in governing others as he was always governing in his own interest.