In these risk-obsessed times, I cannot accept that "honesty", for Governments, means blurting out every adverse prognostication.  That is what Deirdre Hutton of the National Consumer Council, argues for, writing to the Financial Times.  But in the management of public anxiety, Government may have to become very secretive indeed...

Ministers must now learn a new facility, as part of the skills of governance.  As "terrorism" - and the fear of terrorism - both come to play a larger role in our lives, the management of public confidence becomes a new dimension of good government.

Of course, I am an unabashed managerialist.  I am personally convinced, albeit unfashionably, that the tasks of "government" demand a distinctive range of skills, sensitivities and perceptions which go far beyond the requirements of other management functions - in business, the Church, or the professions, or indeed the military.  Some of these skills have always been conducted "in secret" - the conduct of wars and military intelligence operations have traditionally fallen into this category.  Even with advent of modern democracy, and the central importance of transparency in the conduct of State affairs, there is very broad recognition that such powers should continue to be exercised in secret.

The conduct of covert anti-terrorist intelligence, and decisions about the release of threatening information to the general public, constitute just such a zone of governance.  This represents a new, and difficult, dimension of democratic government.  Our leaders must learn new skills, which will have to be exercised in secret but which will be judged by the electorate, very much in public.  We haven't got it right yet.  Ministers are publishing too much - e.g. the ridiculous beef-on-the-bone scare, the cross-channel ferry scare, and the Sarin-on-the-Underground scare - because they do not yet have the confidence to keep the information secret.  The increasing litigiousness of the public is certainly one inhibiting factor, and the Courts may yet develop a new common law defence for Ministers caught in litigation.

• Deirdre Hutton of the National Consumer Council has got the wrong end of the stick.  This is a new and problematical aspect of our political life with is not illuminated by the logic of consumerism.  These governmental issues will be resolved only by strong, perceptive and wise Ministers - and I will lend to them my encouragement to avoid any unnecessary disruption to the public peace of mind.

559   12 December 2002   

the power of poverty

Where everyone is wealthy, poverty can be a strength.  The private litigants in the famous McLibel case kept that legal action for years, draining away the power of the great corporation.  And the Australian High Court has opened up the possibility that Internet will confer greater freedom of thought and expression on the poor than on the rich.

• Indeed Nachum Goldnick could become an Internet hero.  He is a diamond trader in Australia, and locally known as Diamond Joe.  His libel action against Dow Jones is to be heard in the Australian High Court, following a landmark jurisdiction judgment. He is suing the US giant for an article published on the Web in Yr 2000, which he claims is libellous.  Dow Jones argued that the article was "published" in New York, so he could sue them only in New York.  Not so, said the Australian Supreme Court.  Diamond Joe can sue in Australia, under Australian libel law.  That is, after all, where he claims to have been libelled.  This is bad news for the wealthy, for the big corporations. The big Web publishers could be very exposed, financially. 

The Press have billed this as a potential disaster for the World Wide Web.  I say that it could be precisely the opposite.  It could be the saving of the World Wide Web, for the freedom of opinion. For while it is true that the big corporate publishers will have to move very carefully indeed, we "poor" webloggers will enjoy effective freedom of comment. We will simply not be worth powder-and-shot, for any Plaintiff.  

Take me, for example.  I am a natural (not an artificial) person, a sole-trader, without any corporation company wrapped-around me - and therefore I am entitled to represent myself in person in any legal proceedings, without incurring professional legal fees.  If I were to be held liable for any defamation, my entire worldly wealth would hardly meet the Plaintiff's first-day legal costs, let alone damages - corporations, remember, are legally required to employ lawyers, under Rules of Court....  And as a pensioner, my future earnings capacity is non-existent.  That confers upon me the freedom of poverty, which I value. 

Let me confirm (before the writs arrive) that as a barrister with experience of defamation law, I do in practice "edit myself" - and take care to avoid (or quickly delete...) any libellous statements that may flow from my pen.  But I shall be watching the case of Diamond Joe like a hawk.  And I already have plans to form a new Union of Personal Webmasters - corporations need not apply...

What do you think?  Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page