Truth or Lair?

James Baxter's first column has betrayed a particular activism born of his work advocating for press freedom. It situates him among the shrill anti-government policy voices that will fill the opinion pages of http://www.ipolitics.ca/.  Writing about Tom Flanagan's boneheaded remarks on Power and Politics, not only does Baxter fail to note the obvious -- that Assange would be dead today had he pulled the same stunt against a totalitarian state -- but he fails to write the truth about consequences.  Who can dispute that Wikileaks endangers the lives of many?  Baxter writes that this is a "theoretical assertion" but hopefully after reading the news today from Canada's Ambassador in Kabul he will recant that idea.  How many will die in Afghanistan if Canada's diplomacy fails?

But really what Wikileaks threatens is the monopoly on information – and hence power – by governments.What is so stunning and objectionable about Flanagan’s comments is that he’s not suggesting Assange be killed for spreading lies. He wants him dead for unveiling the truth … inconvenient truths … possibly embarrassing truths … but truths in their rawest form.

I certainly wouldn't characterize the vast body of diplomatic missives that is Wikileaks as "truth in their rawest form".   Assange's exposé of what was said in confidence to help shape diplomatic negotiations doesn't represent truth but rather lies.  There is a difference.  The truth is how our politicians acted upon the information they received.  The lies are what the public may have been told that wasn't the whole truth.  The distraction from pressing problems in the world that this Wikileak's revisionist exercise entails is an unprecedented historical event that is quite unrelated to "raw truth".  Further it is unrelated to 'monopolies' on information.  By no means do Governments maintain a monopoly on politically sensitive information  - read about Shell's grip on the Nigerian State if you doubt.  Is it Baxter's provincial activist frame that targets Governments as keepers of the tree of knowledge we are forbidden to eat, or perhaps http://www.ipolitics.ca/ is another Thomson family project and Baxter seeks to limit our inquiry accordingly? I vote the former, mostly because of this:

Wikileaks must be terribly destabilizing and worrisome for people in powerful positions.

Does Baxter understand that when power is threatened people suffer?  While the power brokers both within government and without adjust to the loss of control they will impose more burdens on the public.  We already feel the anxiousness in our North American group: increased prison spending, invasions of privacy at airports, increased police brutality, the G8 police roundups.  And we worry about this destabilization.  Yes they can pull the plug on the Internet.  Yet for my part I will continue to be that 'maverick journalist' that I think Assange is not.  A private citizen logging their political opinion openly in a chosen format that can be easily interpreted. This writing is in my own domain.  It's not trolling a board or dominating threads.  It's pause and reflection that has, in the past, been labelled criminal by a well-noted Candian political journalist. Private citizens risk when they tell their own truths.  In this political climate we're all criminals.

Note: I've republished this writing here from my iPOLITICS, eh? blog archives.