Robin Hood and the 40 sheriffs

Sixty years ago, the term whistle blower referred to umpires who blew their whistle excessively to indicate foul play. Today, the term means someone who exposes wrongdoing in the establishment where he or she works.

Such a person was traditionally called a rat or a stool pigeon to show scorn and derision. But today, whistle blowers have captured the moral high ground and become Robin Hood figures. Today, major corporations seek to show their integrity by highlighting that their core values guarantee whistle blowers immunity from retaliation.

But there are powerful forces that oppose ennobling whistle blowers or granting them immunity.

The greatest whistle blower of them all, Julian Assange, who founded WikiLeaks, is still holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, unable to poke his head out of the window.

To be sure, he received accolades such as the Sam Adams Award and Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, but he has been successfully banished from society; and if he comes out of his self-imposed exile, it will probably be only to exchange one incarceration for another.

We also remember vividly the fate of Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning, who provided WikiLeaks with information and was incarcerated under the Prevention of Injury status, which entailed solitary confinement among other restrictions.

This was the nearest thing to the practice of the mediaeval Ottoman Empire, where pretenders to the throne were locked up in a cell guarded by deaf and mute eunuchs to prevent them from having any contact with anyone.

Remarkably, the authorities were not concerned about the wrongdoing exposed in WikiLeaks, but found unacceptable the fact that this wrongdoing was uncovered.

They reacted not by seeking to prevent a recurrence of the transgressions, but to prevent anyone from ever telling the public about it again.

The same happened when the Panama Papers were leaked in 2015, revealing the types of corporate services provided by the firm Mossack Fonseca.

Going back to the original meaning of the term, it is as if the referee who blew his whistle was punched in the nose, while the team that committed the foul continued to play with impunity.

Interestingly, WikiLeaks are also blamed for causing the Arab Spring. So, Mohammad Bouazizi, a humble street vendor, burned himself to death not in desperation when municipal officers, who were subsequently exonerated from any wrongdoing, confiscated his wares and beat him, but because he had read some WikiLeaks pages on the Internet.

Seriously, though, it is clear that fundamental changes are happening. Secrets have become almost impossible to keep. Not only the wrongdoing, but also the excesses of the rich and powerful are now exposed instantly and globally, and their reaction has so far been clumsy and counterproductive.

This is causing a major loss of confidence in every form of established order in the world, which is dangerously destabilising.

One possible answer may be some probity by the rich and powerful. Then, again, they may consider this an unacceptable precedent to set.

[email protected]