The Tribune

The words of wisdom of George Orwell, the prolific English writer and critic and author of the famous works “Animal Farm” and “1984”, are quoted so often because invariably they are apposite and sum up what others are thinking.

On the wall behind the bronze statue of him outside the BBC’s Broadcasting House in London are inscribed the words “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

How apt it is that this is now being quoted in relation to an important case last week in Britain which is being described as a watershed moment in the battle for free speech in the face of the so-called “woke brigade”. Since freedom of expression is a vital part of democracy, this high-profile case might be of interest here in The Bahamas as well as in the UK.

The facts are straightforward. Last week, the outspoken and controversial journalist, Piers Morgan, who was an anchor on the Good Morning Britain breakfast show on ITV – the BBC’s main competitor domestically – was cleared by the UK TV watchdog OFCOM of any wrongdoing following his negative comments about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey on US prime-time TV in March.

In the course of that lengthy interview shown around the world - which, in Morgan’s words, dropped endless incendiary unsubstantiated bombshells about the Royal Family, most of which turned out later to be untrue – the pair maintained that a member of the family had made racist remarks about their new son’s skin colour and that officials at Buckingham Palace had not taken seriously Meghan’s claims to be suicidal so that she needed treatment. She had also said that three days before their wedding they had been married secretly in a private ceremony conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury which he himself subsequently confirmed did not happen.

Reacting to all this, Morgan said he did not believe a word the Duchess said and called her a “demonstrable liar”, stating: “I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a weather report”. His long and harsh diatribe produced more than 50,000 complaints by the public, including Meghan herself, and he was told by his employers to apologise or resign. He refused to do so and walked out.

Now, many months later, in its lengthy official report OFCOM has found that, in accordance with its Broadcasting Code, and “consistent with freedom of expression, Mr Morgan was entitled to say he disbelieved the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s allegations and to hold and express strong views that challenged their account”. OFCOM therefore concluded that the restriction of such views would, in its opinion, be “an unwarranted and chilling restriction on freedom of expression”.

Use of the word “chilling” has been considered by many to be unusually strong language by OFCOM. Its finding has been welcomed by a range of senior British journalists declaring the regulator’s judgement meant “a pillar of our freedom” in the UK has been reinforced.

Predictably, Morgan himself remains unrepentant, as he is entitled to be following the ruling and given the issue is all about whether someone has the right to have an opinion and to air it publicly. He said afterwards the case was about the very essence of democracy. He has hardly tempered his language subsequently and is now calling the duchess Princess Pinocchio who has a finely-honed sense of victimhood and is a “whiny, forked-tongue actress who is the queen of woke” – and, he says, “the woke brigade think they can vilify, shame, silence and get fired anyone who has an opinion they don’t like”.

This is pretty potent stuff but it will not surprise those who know Morgan as an outspoken and divisive journalist with no fear of what others think of him and who says out loud what a majority think but are afraid to utter for fear of a backlash. But some people dislike him as an opinionated bore. He is often called marmite - an English food spread made from yeast with a strong taste that people either love or hate - because he is simultaneously a media darling and a pariah. But all would surely agree he gets people talking about important issues that affect the lives of many.

Since this case has put the spotlight once again on the principle of freedom of speech and expression, it is worth noting, as a nation, Britain has traditionally placed a strong emphasis on this and the right to individual action as long as it is within the law – for example, as it relates to decency, defamation and the incitement of violence.

It is generally agreed human beings need to exchange ideas and opinions through argument and counter-argument in reaching measured conclusions and achieving, where possible, harmony and consensus. So, in a democracy, it is unacceptable even to consider shutting down debate, crushing dissenting opinion, gagging commentators and seeking to impose conformity - and that includes people voicing criticism of others in the media.

Thus, it is no surprise the UK press is calling this a watershed moment. For, apart from providing news and opinion to inform people, an important role of journalism is to question and challenge statements from public figures - not least when there is no evidence to support what they say - and, by asking the awkward questions, to hold to account governments and others in authority over the rest of us as well as controversial individuals who happen to be in the public eye.

Whether they like him or not, members of the public will be able to continue to rely on Piers Morgan to do just that. So, many will now want to know – what will his next job be?

Call it for what it is - a massive blunder

The month of September is well known for significant events in Britain’s history. To pick just a couple from the distant past, the Mayflower setting sail from Plymouth in England carrying the Pilgrim Fathers to America in 1620 and the Great Fire of London in 1666 which is one of the most well-known disasters in the capital’s history. But, much more recently, arguably the two most important events were Britain’s declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939 – following the latter’s invasion of Poland -- which was generally accepted as the beginning of the Second World War, and, only twenty years ago, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2001.

Some historians maintain the Second World War from 1939 to 1945 was a continuation of what became known as the Great War from 1914 to 1918, both of which were part of a global conflict in the 20th century. They were conducted on a massive scale unlike any other war in history.

Studying these conflicts, while also watching the debacle in Afghanistan of the withdrawal last month of American and NATO forces at short notice and in an unplanned and haphazard manner, has made one aware of the numerous miscalculations and mistakes – during the conduct of international affairs over the last century - by political and military leaders that eventually led to wider conflict.

For instance, most historians regard the excessively harsh terms imposed on Germany by Britain, France and the US in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles to end the First World War led ineluctably to the resumption of hostilities 20 years later, even if this happened gradually in a series of relatively small steps.

In this context, there is, of course, a danger of exaggerating the significance of the Afghanistan withdrawal and allowing the Taliban to take over again after its ousting in the 2001 invasion followed by continuous occupation. But some now fear a comparison with so many poor decisions of the past and what the consequences may be.

Having destroyed Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network in the country and killing him, many people thought Western forces should have departed. But they stayed on and succeeded in bringing a small measure of stability and normalcy to the country even though that was not the original objective.

Most people now agree that most of them - though not all - should be withdrawn. But what matters is how that is done. Suddenly scuttling away, without consulting America’s allies who had military forces there, has been widely condemned as being inept in the extreme. It is now being called a fiasco, not least because of the loss of 13 US service personnel in the deadly bombing at Kabul airport.

Moreover, what happened to Biden’s cry that “America is back” in relation to its allies? People now ask how the US President could believe it made sense to close the secure Bagram airbase overnight – and incidentally leave huge amounts of military equipment behind - when there was a need to evacuate thousands of US and other nations’ civilians together with Afghans who had worked for or supported them for many years. What is more, this was apparently done in order to meet a self-imposed deadline of August 31. How was it right, they ask, to remove military forces before ensuring the evacuation of civilians.

So much has been written about this sorry story that it would be superfluous to go into further detail. But, despite the Americans evacuating some 120,000, so many have been left behind - as has been the case for Britain as well which has been heavily involved in evacuating its own military and civilians. All this raises questions of trust. Who around the world will now expect with any certainty that the US will protect their interests, whether it be Ukraine, Taiwan or elsewhere. Many also fear the possible repercussions of the botched withdrawal at a global geopolitical level, with the threat of China taking advantage of a power vacuum on its doorstep.

It is interesting that leading politicians in Britain like former Prime Ministers John Major and Tony Blair have strongly condemned the sudden complete withdrawal and the way it was carried out as “imbecilic” and strategically stupid as well as being a “stain on the reputation of the West”. Yet, in the face of massive criticism, the White House and Democrats continue, absurdly, to claim it has been a success, though even the mainstream media is now unable to spin the reality of what has happened. For the rest of the world, it is of genuine concern that US leaders have shown such flawed thinking and lack of judgement.

Here we go again...

On a happier note, how good it is to learn that ABBA have announced their return with two new songs together with a forthcoming new album and what has been billed as a new concert experience. The album is due to be released in November, and this is said to be the first work the famous Swedish popular music group have produced together for 40 years.

ABBA, pictured, burst on to the world stage after winning the Eurovision song contest in 1974 and are reputed to be one of the most successful bands of all time, with only The Beatles having sold more records.

Their music and numerous hits are considered to be so popular because they reflect the hopes, fears and values of ordinary people, with lyrics they can associate with – and the songs are catchy and memorable, and therefore good for parties and singalongs on camping holidays while also suitable as background music in, for example, hotels and public places.

Even though the group disbanded as long ago as 1982, their music has lived on through the popular show and film “Mamma Mia”, a romantic comedy which has been played to millions around the world.

On a personal note, I admit to listening to ABBA tapes endlessly while driving on long journeys through France in the 1980s on official business checking out the suitability of local firms to work with UK companies. What a pleasure that was and it turned me into a permanent ABBA fan.

It is no exaggeration to say that for many of my generation their music contributed to the elixir of life - and the revival of the group will now bring back memories of a hitherto long-forgotten youth!