I can understand the attraction of being a spy. There’s the mystery, the play-acting, the adrenaline-rush of covert operations, the delicious fear of being found out. You are privy to information others don’t have, which gives you power over them. In some ways it is “like being God,” in the words of one of the Metropolitan police spies featured in this book; especially, perhaps, if you are someone who feels your life is rather pathetic otherwise. Of course you can also become a spy for principled and ideological reasons: because you genuinely believe you can do good this way. Wartime, or even cold war spies are likely to come into this category. But that doesn’t seem to have been the case in any of the examples chronicled here; of men (and one woman) who infiltrated radical movements in Britain in the 1990s and 2000s, with new names (often taken from dead children, in case anyone checked the registry of births), long hair and beards (they called themselves “The Hairies”), and lots of sleeping around, to preserve credibility. They simply liked the thrill. (And the sex, one imagines.)
This, however, is one of the problems. For most people this sort of work is anathema. Espionage involves deception and betrayal, usually of people you have pretended to befriend, and women you have fathered babies with. It’s a sordid business, and doesn’t attract the most virtuous of people. So how can you trust their information? How do you know they’re not provoking crimes, just to get the kudos for revealing them? (There are examples of this here.) How can you trust the authorities, with all this secretive power in their hands, not to use it for their own purposes — for example, to spy on and try to discredit their own enemies? (This also happened here: agents were charged with digging up dirt on critics of the police, and even on the family of Stephen Lawrence, whose case was notoriously mishandled.) Lastly, how can you trust them to stay loyal; not to go rogue — to blab to the newspapers?
That’s how Guardian journalists Paul Lewis and Rob Evans got hold of this story: from a couple of ex-undercover agents who decided to spill the beans, apparently because they came to feel guilty about what they had been doing, which I suppose is to their credit. Another ex-spy, Mark Kennedy, sold his story to the Mail on Sunday. It is interesting to read how different the penitents’ stories in this book are from Kennedy’s. The former had come to the realization that the men and women they had been spying on were reasonable folk and had seen them brutally beaten up by the police. They had obviously bonded with them. But Kennedy painted an entirely different picture, of filthy, scavenging, wild-eyed terrorists from whom he was hiding, fearing for his and his children’s lives. That made him the victim, of course. One of them must be lying, but that’s the nature of the beast.
It always has been. None of this is new. That is not to say it has always gone on. For much of the 19th century it didn’t, partly because the British authorities were fully aware of the dangers; and partly because any hint of “domestic espionage” at almost any level was regarded as unethical. Worse: it was seen as French. “Spylessness” was a fundamental feature of Britain’s national identity. (Those who wish to use history to establish the nature of “Britishness” might ponder that.) Even if it worked it wasn’t justified. “I would rather half a dozen people’s throats should be cut in Ratcliffe Highway every three or four years,” said one MP (a Lord) in 1811, “than be subject to domiciliary visits, spies and all the rest of Fouche’s contrivances.” (Ratcliffe Highway was a notorious London crime spot, Fouche the chief of the Parisian secret police.) Political spies especially were among the most excoriated villains of popular culture. Governments couldn’t risk their use for many years after that.
That was one of the reasons. A more philosophical one was that domestic espionage undermined popular confidence in the authorities, making the exercise of authority more difficult. If they don’t trust us, why should we trust them? These restraints gradually dissolved during the 20th century, partly under the cover of the world wars, and in the fever of paranoia after the Russian revolution. That came to a head in the late 1960s and 1970s. The farcical plot against Harold Wilson, who was suspected of being a Soviet mole, happened at exactly the time as the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) — motto “By Any Means Necessary” — was secretly set up. In retrospect, the year 1968 can be seen to mark the beginning of Britain’s Great Reaction, which has gone on (and on) since then. In Britain it is the right wing that has generally been most willing to use underhand methods against its perceived enemies, and to defend these methods openly: “If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.” It is also the right who tend to cry “conspiracy theorist” at anyone who suspects this kind of thing. In the view of Evans and Lewis, the conspiracy theorists have been “not nearly paranoid enough.”
The question remains whether these methods can be in any way justified by their results. The circumstances of today are different from those of the 19th century. It is arguable that there are more subversive dangers now: though there were plenty of things that the Victorians could have painted as subversive if they had been so inclined. Perhaps the switch from being the most proudly “spyless” of nations to possibly the most spied on — surveillance cameras, GCHQ, Prism, industrial “blacklists” and the like — had to come. But it is difficult to see the SDS fitting into this rationale. IRA and Islamist terrorists are one thing. (Bankers might have been another, if only we had realized where the real danger lay.) But tree-huggers, veggies, anti-imperialists and animal rights campaigners — the SDS’s main targets? Come on!
With all this going on, it may not be surprising that popular trust in government is breaking down. It is what the Victorians would have expected. We’re no longer so surprised by revelations such as this, which is sad. But the real change will have come if we are no longer outraged by them — then we really will have changed as a nation. With luck, the grotesqueries revealed in this powerful book will fire some of the old free and radical British spirit again. But don’t wait up.
In late October of 1873 the government of Japan decided against sending a military expedition to Korea to force that nation to open trade relations. Across the government supporters of the expedition resigned immediately. The spectacle of revolt by disaffected samurai began to loom over Japanese politics. In January of 1874 disaffected samurai attacked a senior minister in Tokyo. A month later, a group of pro-Korea expedition and anti-foreign elements from Saga prefecture in Kyushu revolted, driven in part by high food prices stemming from poor harvests. Their leader, according to Edward Drea’s classic Japan’s Imperial Army, was a samurai
Located down a sideroad in old Wanhua District (萬華區), Waley Art (水谷藝術) has an established reputation for curating some of the more provocative indie art exhibitions in Taipei. And this month is no exception. Beyond the innocuous facade of a shophouse, the full three stories of the gallery space (including the basement) have been taken over by photographs, installation videos and abstract images courtesy of two creatives who hail from the opposite ends of the earth, Taiwan’s Hsu Yi-ting (許懿婷) and Germany’s Benjamin Janzen. “In 2019, I had an art residency in Europe,” Hsu says. “I met Benjamin in the lobby
April 22 to April 28 The true identity of the mastermind behind the Demon Gang (魔鬼黨) was undoubtedly on the minds of countless schoolchildren in late 1958. In the days leading up to the big reveal, more than 10,000 guesses were sent to Ta Hwa Publishing Co (大華文化社) for a chance to win prizes. The smash success of the comic series Great Battle Against the Demon Gang (大戰魔鬼黨) came as a surprise to author Yeh Hung-chia (葉宏甲), who had long given up on his dream after being jailed for 10 months in 1947 over political cartoons. Protagonist
Peter Brighton was amazed when he found the giant jackfruit. He had been watching it grow on his farm in far north Queensland, and when it came time to pick it from the tree, it was so heavy it needed two people to do the job. “I was surprised when we cut it off and felt how heavy it was,” he says. “I grabbed it and my wife cut it — couldn’t do it by myself, it took two of us.” Weighing in at 45 kilograms, it is the heaviest jackfruit that Brighton has ever grown on his tropical fruit farm, located