I have written, briefly but openly, upon this site, on the absurdity of super-injunctions, and their continued presence even after they have been ‘outed’ within the confines of Parliament. Too many of our MPs are silent and subservient to the Judges, so when such admirable an example as MP John Hemmings, speaking in a debate upon ‘Freedom of Speech’ warns that he is about to speak openly about matters under such a secret ban, he is ‘warned’ by fellow MP Peter Bone! How dare this trumped-up excuse for a democrat warn a fellow MP that he must be careful. It is a fine line between caution and the Stasi, and our Government must be careful themselves that they weigh too heavily upon the rights of judges to decide what will, and what will not become common knowledge in Great Britain.
It is only some eighty-odd years ago that the man who would be king, Edward the Eighth, renounced his throne in order to marry a twice-divorced American, Wallis Simpson. But the first that the ordinary British public learned of the liaison between a future King and an American fortune hunter was on the day that news of the King’s Abdication was broadcast after the new King had ascended the Throne. Foreign newspapers had of course printed acres of newsprint about the ongoing romance between the Heir to the Throne and a double-divorcee, but not a word was printed or broadcast within the confines of Great Britain. By an unwritten but firmly-ordered news blackout, organised by a combination of newspaper proprietors, high Royal courtiers, a compliant and complaisant Government ensured that the man who was our next constitutional Monarch could do what he liked, in the knowledge that no publicity was given to his besotted arrangement with the woman whom no-one in Britain, apart from a select few, knew even existed.
It is true that most of the super-injunctions are given to protect the sleazy secrets of ‘celebrities’ or football and sporting ‘stars’, presumably on the grounds of Human Rights’ Article Eight of ‘Privacy’, but what about Article Ten, which discusses Freedom of Expression? Frankly, I could care less about whether English footballer John Terry screwed his best friend’s girlfriend or not, and similarly whether Max Mosley conducted sado-masochistic orgies with whores; but I do care passionately whether a ‘Public Servant’ is granted complete anonymity before trial on charges of paeadophile behaviour, solely on the grounds that he is a ‘Public Servant’. Stephen Glover has it about right when he states that with things going the way they are, it is hard not to be profoundly depressed.
The only real grounds for secrecy in a trial are those which relate to National Security, and this should and must only be claimed after scrupulous discussion, by independent Judges, of the evidence under review. There must and can be no alternatives. The truth must be seen, and to be heard, otherwise we exist upon the short and slippery road to the same ideas which kept our grandfathers from even reading that their future King was disporting himself with a woman ‘not acceptable within polite circles’. True, that was the theme of the times, but our politicians were shrewd, and a woman who in later life met and was welcomed by Adolf Hitler couldn’t be said to be ‘suitable as the next Queen’.