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.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS