UK govt has gone ‘way beyond’ prescribed limits of press freedom
The UK claims mass surveillance is crucial to national security but seems unwilling to provide evidence of that. The government should shoulder responsibility, but instead lacks accountability, Freedom of Information campaigner Thomas Hughes told RT.
In a joint letter to British Prime Minister David Cameron, 70
human rights organizations from 40 countries recently stated
their concern over the UK’s reaction to revelations of mass
surveillance.
Increased pressure on media outlets reporting on the leaks leads
to the assumption that those responsible for overseeing the
actions of security agencies are simply trying to cover a trail,
Hughes said.
RT:As we can see, this letter to Prime Minister David
Cameron is a global initiative. Why, in your opinion, have so
many activists from around the world decided to join in?
Thomas Hughes: Well, I think many of the press freedom and
freedom of expression organizations internationally felt the same
degree of concern that the UK – a traditional defender of freedom
of expression – [is] eroding press freedoms like this.
RT:What kind of reaction or response do you expect from
the prime minister?
TH: Well, I’m not sure what the action will be from the UK
government. Certainly we – regardless of the reaction – we will
continue to pursue this; we will continue to do our global
advocacy around this issue, and we will also continue from an
Article 19 perspective to give input to the High Court case
obviously surrounding David Miranda at the moment, and also do a
submission to the parliamentary committee that will be reviewing
the Guardian in the context of terrorism legislation.
RT:Some officials say the leaking of classified data
indeed jeopardizes national security. To what extent do you agree
or disagree with that?
TH: Well, of course national security is a very serious
issue, and there are permissible limits to freedom of expression
and press freedoms according to national security, and they are
well prescribed in international law. Our concern is that the UK
government has simply gone way beyond what those normal
prescribed limits are, and therefore the oversight and
accountability of those actions is very much in question.
RT:The chiefs of the UK spy agencies are expected to
testify in public this week. What do you expect to hear from them
– and what would you like them to say?
TH: Well, probably more of the same I would have thought.
This very open-ended argument that the mass surveillance that’s
taken place is crucial to national security without any kind of
substance or significant evidence to support that, and that the
Guardian – and other media besides the Guardian – has somehow
violated and undermined national security.
RT:Intelligence officials in Washington are blaming
the agencies for ordering these operations. Is this a situation
where the pot is calling the kettle black? In your opinion, who
is responsible for this?
TH: Well, responsibility lies with the government. They
are obviously responsible for overseeing the actions of the
security agencies, and that’s undeniable. The way they’re
reacting, one assumes that they are possibly trying to cover a
trail. The internal discussions that are ongoing between the UK
authorities and the security agencies are unknown to us. But
that’s actually part of the point – part of the interest. There
has been this overreach; there is a lack of accountability and
transparency. We need more public answers to these questions – we
need to know more about what’s been going on.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.