If you were to invent a scandal expressly to convince conspiracy theorists they were right all along, the story of the Afghan superinjunction would be hard to beat.
A secret back door into the UK through which thousands of immigrants were brought, under cover of a draconian legal gagging order that helpfully also concealed an act of gross incompetence by the British state? It is a right-wing agitator’s dream.
“The real disinformation is the regime media,” political strategist Dominic Cummings wrote on X, a platform notably awash with real disinformation. Yes, that Dominic Cummings.
It was hard enough already to counter paranoia about alleged grooming gang cover-ups, policing of immigrant communities or imaginary supposed plots to flood the country with refugees just so they can vote Labour. Now, like stopped clocks fleetingly getting the time right twice a day, the usual suspects would pounce: See, the deep state does lie to you! Meanwhile, fantasists of all political stripes and none, whose go-to explanation for why the hated mainstream media mysteriously are not covering their pet theory is invariably that “there must be a superinjunction,” would have a field day.
You do not have to wear a tinfoil hat to find this particular cover-up unnerving.
Conservative Member of Parliament Mark Pritchard asked British Secretary of State for Defence John Healey: How anyone could be sure there were no other government superinjunctions active?
If there were, Healey could not tell him anyway, he added.
How does anyone know who to trust, in an era when excess naivety and unwarranted suspicion could have demonstrably terrible consequences? It is not just a political question.
Last week, Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were convicted of the gross negligence manslaughter of their newborn daughter, Victoria, who died sleeping in a tent on a freezing January night while her parents were on the run from social workers, their families and authority in general. The couple, whose first four children were already in care, were probably right to fear her being taken from them. However, at least she could have lived, if they had trusted social services enough to engage.
The week before, it emerged that a child had died in Liverpool of measles, a completely preventable disease of which there have been continuing outbreaks thanks to a mix of complex factors, including vaccine scepticism and mistrust of the medical establishment. However, it is not known if the child was vaccinated — measles could be dangerous for people with compromised immune systems even if they have had the jab — the point of keeping vaccine uptake high is to protect the vulnerable, by preventing outbreaks such as the one currently active in the north-west.
Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has enraged his own fanbase by insisting that only “stupid people” believe there was a government cover-up over the death of alleged pedophile Jeffrey Epstein — a cherished “Make America Great Again” belief Trump seemed happy to stoke back when the idea of a plot to protect some wicked liberal elite suited him. There would be more schadenfreude in seeing Trump hoist by his own post-truth petard, if his followers did not have a proven capacity for violence when angered.
What ties these very different stories together is a creeping crisis of faith in institutions, from medicine to the law, politics to policing, which has begun to feel actively dangerous. Yet knowing that does not make reversing it any easier.
I have been thinking about this on and off for months, since joining a thinktank roundtable on restoring public trust that posed some difficult practical questions. My tuppence worth was on rock-bottom levels of trust in the media. Would a return to believing everything you read or hear be healthy? I cannot in all conscience say so, not when there are so many underregulated new platforms I would not trust to tell the time of day, and artificial intelligence fakes are getting so sophisticated.
Trusting the media less is logical, maybe even necessary, in the circumstances. Yet rational scepticism can all too quickly spiral into blanket suspicion of everything and everyone, justified or not. No society can function like that.
One answer is that where trust is no longer automatic, powerful institutions could earn it back by submitting to clear checks and balances. And that is exactly what did not happen with the British Ministry of Defence superinjunction.
Faced with a catastrophic leak — a soldier e-mailing a spreadsheet of names that put up to 100,000 Afghans potentially at risk — the then-Conservative government had a moral duty to protect those endangered. Although it is likely many were already identifiable as Taliban targets via other means, it was not unreasonable to seek a brief temporary news blackout while organizing an evacuation, followed by full public disclosure at the earliest safe opportunity.
However, it should have been brief — nothing like a 600-day injunction — and crucially, the British Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) should have been brought into the loop to ensure it was. Invented to provide democratic oversight in sensitive situations when briefing every last gossipy backbencher is impractical, the ISC could have acted as guarantors of the public’s right to know. Instead, it was left to an incoming Labour secretary of state for defence to question whether spending billions on secretively righting past wrongs was the best use of public money, prompting a review that collapsed the whole house of cards.
Trust in the British state, at home and abroad, would inevitably be the casualty. While about 24,000 of those named in the leak are already in the UK or on the way, the rest are being expected simply to accept the revised view that they are safe where they are.
Amid the chaos, as former British minister of state for veterans’ affairs Johnny Mercer said, it is likely some with frankly tenuous connections to the UK gained sanctuary essentially for being victims of British ineptitude, while some Afghan special forces soldiers who bravely fought the Taliban alongside the British (and were promised they would be looked after) have been puzzlingly left behind. That is the kind of injustice that echoes down generations.
Back home, ministers must now brace for far-right attempts to exploit this scandal, and for some uncomfortable questions.
Was the superinjunction really about saving lives, sparing political blushes, avoiding inflaming already high tensions over immigration or all of the above? And when exactly would the Ministry of Defence have voluntarily confessed, if a handful of journalists — the same old legacy media that apparently nobody trusts — had not gotten wind of what happened?
That is the paradox, right there: Sometimes, the alternatives to putting your faith in an institution which has previously failed you — be it social services, doctors, journalists or conventional politics — are even worse. Trust everybody, and you might get taken for a fool. Trust nobody, and you become the fool. Unfortunately, there is no easy way around that.
Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist.
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
There are no obvious connections between the 7-Eleven retail chain in Japan and the Philippines’ national security concerns in the South China Sea. Here is one, one that also takes in Canadian Broadcasting Corp (CBC), the government of Denmark and Taiwanese plastic surgeons on the way. Japan’s 7-Eleven on Friday last week posted on social media an image of uniforms worn by the chain store’s employees in various locations, including Taiwan, the US, Hawaii, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Cambodia and the Philippines. If this was intended to promote a sense of camaraderie within the 7-Eleven family, it backfired. Taiwan was tagged with the
RSS