Demonstrators protest against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after the May Day rally in Tokyo, Japan. Photograph: EPA/Kimimasa Mayama
WikiLeaks has released the draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a multilateral free-trade treaty currently being negotiated in secret by 12 Pacific Rim nations.
The full agreement covers a number of areas, but the chapter published by WikiLeaks focuses on intellectual property rights, an area of law which has effects in areas as diverse as pharmaceuticals and civil liberties.
Negotiations for the TPP have included representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei, but have been conducted behind closed doors. Even members of the US Congress were only allowed to view selected portions of the documents under supervision.
"We're really worried about a process which is so difficult for those who take an interest in these agreements to deal with. We rely on leaks like these to know what people are talking about," says Peter Bradwell, policy director of the London-based Open Rights Group.
"Lots of people in civil society have stressed that being more transparent, and talking about the text on the table, is crucial to give treaties like this any legitimacy. We shouldn't have to rely on leaks to start a debate about what's in then."
The 30,000 word intellectual property chapter contains proposals to increase the term of patents, including medical patents, beyond 20 years, and lower global standards for patentability. It also pushes for aggressive measures to prevent hackers breaking copyright protection, although that comes with some exceptions: protection can be broken in the course of "lawfully authorised activities carried out by government employees, agents, or contractors for the purpose of law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar governmental purposes".
WikiLeaks claims that the text shows America attempting to enforce its highly restrictive vision of intellectual property on the world – and on itself. "The US administration is aggressively pushing the TPP through the US legislative process on the sly," says Julian Assange, the founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, who is living in the Ecuadorean embassy in London following an extradition dispute with Sweden, where he faces allegations of rape.
"If instituted," Assange continues, "the TPP’s intellectual property regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs."
Just Foreign Policy, a group dedicated to reforming US foreign policy, managed to crowdfund a $70,000 (£43,700) bounty for Wikileaks if the organisation managed to leak the TPP text. "Our pledge, as individuals, is to donate this money to WikiLeaks should it leak the document we seek." The conditions the group set have not yet been met, however, because it required the full text, not individual chapters.
Related to the TPP is a second secret trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which ties together regulatory practices in the US and EU. George Monbiot, writing in this paper, referred to the treaty as a "monstrous assault on democracy". Ken Clarke, the minister without portfolio, replied that it "would see our economy grow by an extra £10bn per annum".
Campaign group Fight for the Future has already collected over 100,000 signatures in an online petition against what it calls the “extreme Internet censorship plan: contained in the TPP.
Evan Greer, campaign manager for Fight for the Future, said: "The documents revealed by WikiLeaks make it clear why the US government has worked so hard to keep the TPP negotiatons secret. While claiming to champion an open Internet, the Obama administration is quietly pushing for extreme, SOPA-like copyright policies that benefit Hollywood and giant pharmaceutical companies at the expense of our most basic rights to freedom of expression online."
Britain's home secretary, Theresa May, leaves Downing Street in London. Photograph: Stefan Wermuth/Reuters
Last March, I watched from afar as perhaps the most important case in my 30-year legal career was decided in a soundproofed room protected by a security guard. This was the first time in the UK supreme court's history that it had entered closed session for what has been aptly named a "secret court". It is a phrase we should get used to after a judge ruled last week that the home secretary, Theresa May, has the power to "terminate" high court challenges on national security grounds and push more cases away from public view.
This ruling is all the more worrying after my experience. Giving his final judgment on our secret court, Lord Hope described it as an "unwelcome departure from the principle of open justice", calling for a "stern and steadfast resistance to the use of that procedure" in the future. His call is one that every Briton should heed.
Representing Bank Mellat, an Iranian bank caught up in the middle of the sanctions battle between the west and Iran, I was tasked with showing that UK sanctions must be more than an indiscriminate attack on people living under regimes we dislike. My firm argued that the Treasury had no evidence to suggest the bank had somehow helped Iran's nuclear programme. The sanctions were at best irrational and at worst discriminatory. The supreme court agreed – but there was a catch. In a last ditch attempt to win the day, the Treasury claimed that they did have rock solid evidence … they just couldn't show anyone.
The dilemma was etched on Lord Neuberger's face as he announced the decision to enter a secret court. On the one hand, the Treasury insisted that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons, but on the other the supreme court risked undermining the whole system of open justice. Imagine being convicted of a crime by evidence you are not allowed to see and without the opportunity to defend yourself – that is the state in which the bank found itself. When the Treasury insisted that the supreme court view evidence obtained from the secret services, the judges obliged in good faith. Ultimately, the court attached little weight to this evidence and decided in Bank Mellat's favour.
The judges' concern, much like my own, is that justice conducted behind closed doors with evidence hidden from view is no kind of justice at all.
The ultimate driving force behind this self-mutilation of a proud justice system was the politics of security. Ironically, it is in our dealings with the alleged opponents of liberty that the dangerous, prejudicial and irrational politics of security push us to our most extreme. Just as the US Prism programme is unravelling the extent to which we have given up our privacy to GCHQ, so too are secret courts forcing us to be "free" in ways we are powerless to stop.
You need only look to the US to see the sacrifices made in the name of national security – a compassionless system fuelled by uncompromising secret surveillance of citizens and allowing the unchecked detention of suspects in Guantánamo Bay. Has the balance in the name of security gone too far? In Bank Mellat's instance, our supreme court may have dismissed the government's tactics, but it would be naive to hope that nine judges will be enough to rein in sustained attacks on British liberty if the rot of politics continues to eat away at our rights. Only days after the supreme court entered closed session in the case I was representing, a broad coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservative MPs pushed through the Justice and Security bill, allowing the same secret courts used against foreign companies to apply to anyone living in the UK. This bill has now come into full force. Indeed, as the revelations about GCHQ's snooping make clear, there will be no dearth of information available to help the secret courts convict us.
If the British people have suddenly decided that open justice is a luxury we cannot afford, then I for one was not invited to the debate. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the threats facing the UK warrant such suspensions of justice, but it is both absurd and dangerous to allow this vital judgment call to be made solely by those politicians who hope to wield the new powers against us. Privileges which we can surely only give up voluntarily have been wrestled from us without our consent.
The revelations of secret courts and Prism show just how little influence we have over our own rights. Indeed as Theresa May can now attest, not even high court judges can keep the government's secret courts at bay. It is time politicians asked for our permission before denying us access to open justice.
On Sark in the Channel islands there have been 24 current and former UK company directors for every resident. Photograph: Universalimagesgroup/UIG via Getty Images
More than 175,000 UK-registered companies have used directors giving addresses in offshore jurisdictions, the Guardian has established. This raises fresh concerns about the scale of Britain's involvement in offshore secrecy arrangements.
Data obtained from the corporate information service Duedil reveals 177,020 companies have listed directors in jurisdictions such as the Channel Islands, British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, Dubai and the Seychelles.
More than 60,000 of those companies are listed as currently active on Companies House, the official register of UK businesses.
Having directors in offshore jurisdictions does not indicate a company is doing anything illegal, or that a director is necessarily a sham.
British expats who retain directorships of their business would feature in this data, as do "personal services companies" based in the Isle of Man, which help self-employed people incorporate themselves as a limited company.
However, the figures do reveal the huge scale of company registration relative to some of the islands' tiny populations: 47,161 companies have listed directors from the Isle of Man – representing one British company for every 1.8 residents of the island.
The figure is even more stark for the secrecy haven of the British Virgin Islands, where there is one director listed for every 1.3 residents of the islands, for a total of 17,959 UK businesses, past and present.
On the tiny Channel Island of Sark, there have been 24 current and former UK company directors for every resident of the island.
Many of the key figures involved in the "Sark Lark", as it was known, emigrated when the island's controversial practices came under scrutiny a decade ago. Most of those companies are now defunct, with only around 209 active directorships.
A Guardian/ICIJ investigation, published last November, documented the activities of more than two dozen "sham directors" – Britons each listed as directors of hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of companies registered across the world, allowing the real people behind them to stay in the shadows.
These sham directors held directorships not only in offshore companies but also in more than 8,900 British-registered companies – meaning UK authorities were left in the dark as to who was really in charge of supposedly British businesses.
These new findings suggest the numbers of such less-than-genuine directors on British company registers may be much greater than the 28 so far identified.
The Offshore Secrets investigation identified groups of nominee directors working out of territories scattered across the world. Atlas Corporate Services operated from Dubai and the Seychelles with six sham directors purportedly controlling more than 5,400 international companies.
Another pair of British expats, Sarah and Edward Petre-Mears, appeared to have a global empire of more than 2,250 directorships between them – run, initially, from their home in Sark, and then from a collection of addresses on the tiny Caribbean island of Nevis.
Writing in the Guardian in the wake of the initial findings, and before the latest figures came to light, the business secretary, Vince Cable, warned against the practice of using sham directors based in offshore territories. "[We] must identify and stop the minority who sail too close to the wind in order to protect the UK's reputation as a trusted place to do business," he said. "Becoming a company director carries with it legal responsibilities which, if breached, can result in disqualification, fines and prison.
"Some people think that putting up a straw man as a director makes them immune from the consequences. This is not the case: if you are acting as a director, you are liable."
The British Virgin Islands, the world's leading offshore haven used by an array of government officials and rich families to hide their wealth. Photograph: Duncan Mcnicol/Getty Images
Millions of internal records have leaked from Britain's offshore financial industry, exposing for the first time the identities of thousands of holders of anonymous wealth from around the world, from presidents to plutocrats, the daughter of a notorious dictator and a British millionaire accused of concealing assets from his ex-wife.
The leak of 2m emails and other documents, mainly from the offshore haven of the British Virgin Islands (BVI), has the potential to cause a seismic shock worldwide to the booming offshore trade, with a former chief economist at McKinsey estimating that wealthy individuals may have as much as $32tn (£21tn) stashed in overseas havens.
In France, Jean-Jacques Augier, President François Hollande's campaign co-treasurer and close friend, has been forced to publicly identify his Chinese business partner. It emerges as Hollande is mired in financial scandal because his former budget minister concealed a Swiss bank account for 20 years and repeatedly lied about it.
In Mongolia, the country's former finance minister and deputy speaker of its parliament says he may have to resign from politics as a result of this investigation.
But the two can now be named for the first time because of their use of companies in offshore havens, particularly in the British Virgin Islands, where owners' identities normally remain secret.
The naming project may be extremely damaging for confidence among the world's wealthiest people, no longer certain that the size of their fortunes remains hidden from governments and from their neighbours.
BVI's clients include Scot Young, a millionaire associate of deceased oligarch Boris Berezovsky. Dundee-born Young is in jail for contempt of court for concealing assets from his ex-wife.
Young's lawyer, to whom he signed over power of attorney, appears to control interests in a BVI company that owns a potentially lucrative Moscow development with a value estimated at $100m.
Another is jailed fraudster Achilleas Kallakis. He used fake BVI companies to obtain a record-breaking £750m in property loans from reckless British and Irish banks.
As well as Britons hiding wealth offshore, an extraordinary array of government officials and rich families across the world are identified, from Canada, the US, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, China, Thailand and former communist states.
The data seen by the Guardian shows that their secret companies are based mainly in the British Virgin Islands.
Sample offshore owners named in the leaked files include:
• Jean-Jacques Augier, François Hollande's 2012 election campaign co-treasurer, launched a Caymans-based distributor in China with a 25% partner in a BVI company. Augier says his partner was Xi Shu, a Chinese businessman.
• Mongolia's former finance minister. Bayartsogt Sangajav set up "Legend Plus Capital Ltd" with a Swiss bank account, while he served as finance minister of the impoverished state from 2008 to 2012. He says it was "a mistake" not to declare it, and says "I probably should consider resigning from my position".
• The president of Azerbaijan and his family. A local construction magnate, Hassan Gozal, controls entities set up in the names of President Ilham Aliyev's two daughters.
• The wife of Russia's deputy prime minister. Olga Shuvalova's husband, businessman and politician Igor Shuvalov, has denied allegations of wrongdoing about her offshore interests.
•A senator's husband in Canada. Lawyer Tony Merchant deposited more than US$800,000 into an offshore trust.
He paid fees in cash and ordered written communication to be "kept to a minimum".
• A dictator's child in the Philippines: Maria Imelda Marcos Manotoc, a provincial governor, is the eldest daughter of former President Ferdinand Marcos, notorious for corruption.
• Spain's wealthiest art collector, Baroness Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza, a former beauty queen and widow of a Thyssen steel billionaire, who uses offshore entities to buy pictures.
• US: Offshore clients include Denise Rich, ex-wife of notorious oil trader Marc Rich, who was controversially pardoned by President Clinton on tax evasion charges. She put $144m into the Dry Trust, set up in the Cook Islands.
It is estimated that more than $20tn acquired by wealthy individuals could lie in offshore accounts. The UK-controlled BVI has been the most successful among the mushrooming secrecy havens that cater for them.
The Caribbean micro-state has incorporated more than a million such offshore entitiessince it began marketing itself worldwide in the 1980s. Owners' true identities are never revealed.
Even the island's official financial regulators normally have no idea who is behind them.
The British Foreign Office depends on the BVI's company licensing revenue to subsidise this residual outpost of empire, while lawyers and accountants in the City of London benefit from a lucrative trade as intermediaries.
They claim the tax-free offshore companies provide legitimate privacy. Neil Smith, the financial secretary of the autonomous local administration in the BVI's capital Tortola, told the Guardian it was very inaccurate to claim the island "harbours the ethically challenged".
He said: "Our legislation provides a more hostile environment for illegality than most jurisdictions".
Smith added that in "rare instances …where the BVI was implicated in illegal activity by association or otherwise, we responded swiftly and decisively".
The Guardian and ICIJ's Offshore Secrets series last year exposed how UK property empires have been built up by, among others, Russian oligarchs, fraudsters and tax avoiders, using BVI companies behind a screen of sham directors.
Such so-called "nominees", Britons giving far-flung addresses on Nevis in the Caribbean, Dubai or the Seychelles, are simply renting out their names for the real owners to hide behind.
The whistleblowing group WikiLeaks caused a storm of controversy in 2010 when it was able to download almost two gigabytes of leaked US military and diplomatic files.
The new BVI data, by contrast, contains more than 200 gigabytes, covering more than a decade of financial information about the global transactions of BVI private incorporation agencies. It also includes data on their offshoots in Singapore, Hong Kong and the Cook Islands in the Pacific.
-----
Profiles of leading secret account holders
Leading figures across the globe with secret overseas entities
Name: Bayartsogt Sangajav Offshore company: Legend Plus Capital Limited
One of Mongolia's most senior politicians says he is considering resigning from office after being confronted with evidence of his offshore entity and secret Swiss bank account.
"I shouldn't have opened that account. I should have included the company in my declarations," Bayartsogt Sangajav told the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). "I don't worry about my reputation. I worry about my family. I probably should consider resigning from my position."
Bayartsogt, who says his account at one point contained more than $1 million, became his country's finance minister in September 2008, a position he held until a cabinet reshuffle in August 2012. He is now the deputy speaker of Parliament.
During those years he attended international meetings and served as governor of the Asian Development Bank and the European Bank of Reconstruction, pushing the case for his poor nation to receive foreign development assistance and investment.
Canada
Name: Tony Merchant Offshore Company: Merchant (2000) US Inc Trust
Colourful lawyer and former politician, married to Liberal party senator Pana Merchant. Known for challenges to the Canadian revenue agency over his tax payments . He has also been disciplined by the Law Society for "conduct unbecoming ." In 1998, launched Cook Islands trust with deposit of more than US$800,000 as settlor and initially as beneficiary. Sent fee payments in cash envelopes: the agents noted "All communications regarding this trust is to be kept to a minimum…Do not ever send faxes cos he will have a stroke about it"
Comment: Declines to comment
France
Name: Jean-Jacques Augier Offshore company: International Bookstores Ltd [IBL]
Publisher and Sinologist. Campaign treasurer of François Hollande for the 2012 presidential elections. They studied together at the prestigious National School of Management (ENA). Chief Executive of Eurane SA. Made large publishing investment in China 2005. Caymans-registered entity IBL, set up with 25% shareholding granted to BVI company Sinolinks Transworld Investment Consultancy, and 2.5% shareholding to a Hong Kong entity Capital Concord Developments Ltd.
Comment: He says partner in the offshore firm was Xi Shu, a businessman and a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, a political advisory body.
Russia
Name: Olga Shuvalova Offshore companies: Plato Management & other BVI companies owned by Severin Enterprises Inc
Wife of Igor Shuvalov, a businessman and politician close to Putin , first deputy prime minister since 2008. In 2007, she is recorded as owning Severin Enterprises , set up via Moscow agency Amond & Smith. The dealings of another of its subsidiaries, Bahamas-registered Sevenkey Ltd, were detailed in a 2011 investigative article in Barron's, which tied the company to her husband, who has denied wrongdoing.
Comment: declines to comment
US
Name: Denise Rich Offshore company: The Dry Trust
Among nearly 4,000 American names is Denise Rich, a songwriter whose ex-husband, the oil trader Marc Rich, was pardoned by President Clinton as he left office in 2001, over tax evasion and racketeering charges. A Congressional investigation found that Rich, who raised millions of dollars for Democratic politicians, helped promote the pardon. She had $144 million in April 2006 in the trust in the Cook Islands plus a yacht called the Lady Joy, where Rich often entertained celebrities and raised money for charity.
Comment: Rich, who gave up her U.S. citizenship in 2011 and now maintains citizenship in Austria, did not reply to questions about her offshore trust
Azerbaijan
Name: President Ilham Aliyev and family Offshore Companies: Arbor Investments; LaBelleza Holdings; Harvard Management; Rosamund International
Three BVI entities set up in 2008 in the names of the president's daughters, Arzu and Leyla,. They list as a director wealthy local businessman, Hassan Gozal. His construction company has won major contracts in Azerbaijan. Another BVI entity set up in 2003, lists the president and his wife Mehriban as owners.
Comment: Those involved decline to comment
Spain
Name: Baroness Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza Offshore Companies: Sargasso Trustees Ltd (1996-2004) and Nautilus Ltd (1994), both registered in the Cook Is. Her son, Borja, also has some of the shares
Former beauty queen, Spanish-based art collector and widow of a billionaire Thyssen steel heir, she used the offshore vehicles to buy art, including Van Gogh's "Watermill at Gennep" from Sotheby and Christies in London.
Her lawyer acknowledged that she gains tax benefits by holding ownership of her art offshore, but stressed that she primarily seeks "maximum flexibility" to move art from country to country
Comment: Her lawyer acknowledged tax benefits from owning art offshore, but stressed that she primarily seeks "maximum flexibility" to move art from country to country
Philippines
Name: Maria Imelda Marcos Manotoc Offshore company: Sintra Trust [BVI]
Late president Marcos' eldest daughter, now a provincial governor, is listed in 2005 in the BVI as the "investment advisor" and beneficiary of the Sintra Trust, set up by her associate, businessman Mark Chua of Singapore. She does not mention the trust in her Philippines declarations of financial interests
Comment: She declined to answer a series of questions from local journalists about the trust
• It is not suggested that any of those listed here have behaved unlawfully. Offshore entities can be held legitimately: the only aspect those listed below have in common is that they have used a jurisdiction which provides them with secrecy. This list is compiled from ICIJ data in the interests of accountability and transparency: any inaccuracies will be corrected promptly if brought to our attention.
Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate Jo Shaw announces her resignation during a speech at the party's spring conference. Photograph: Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images
I have worked closely with the Liberal Democrats since the attacks of 11 September; it has been the only party to adopt a principled and consistent position favouring the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. In difficult times, and in the face of blanket claims invoking risks to national security, the Liberal Democrats have resisted policies embracing torture, rendition and the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists without charge, as well as war under conditions of patent illegality.
After the London attacks of July 2005 the Lib Dems stood firm against the idea that the "rules of the game" had changed, committed to respect of human rights for all. They opposed executive authority, secrecy and the rise of the "security state". In government, on many issues, that position has been maintained. But to my great regret, last week the parliamentary group was whipped to vote in favour of the introduction of secret court hearings in part 2 of the justice and security bill. If adopted, the bill will put British judges in the invidious position of adjudging certain civil claims under conditions in which one party will not be entitled to see the evidence on which the opposing party relies. Last year Lib Dem members voted overwhelmingly against this. They did so again at their conference on Sunday. Their approach was informed, reasonable, principled and correct. Why was it ignored?
This part of the bill is a messy and unhappy compromise. It is said to have been demanded by the US (which itself has stopped more or less any case that raises 'national security' issues from reaching court), on the basis that it won't share as much sensitive intelligence information if the UK doesn't rein in its courts. Important decisions on intelligence taken at the instigation of others are inherently unreliable. We remember Iraq, which broke a bond of trust between government and citizen.
There is no floodgate of cases, nothing in the coalition agreement, nor any widely supported call for such a draconian change. There is every chance that, if the bill is adopted, this and future governments will spend years defending the legislation in UK courts and Strasbourg. There will be claims that it violates rights of fair trial under the Human Rights Act and the European convention (no doubt giving rise to ever-more strident calls from Theresa May and Chris Grayling that both should be scrapped). Other countries with a less robust legal tradition favouring the rule of law and an independent judiciary will take their lead from the UK, as they did with torture and rendition.
I accept that there may be times when the country faces a threat of such gravity and imminence that the exceptional measure of closed material proceedings might be needed. This is not such a time, and the bill is not such a measure. Under conditions prevailing today, this part of the bill is not pragmatic or proportionate. It is wrong in principle, and will not deliver justice. It will be used to shield governmental wrongdoing from public and judicial scrutiny under conditions that are fair and just. The bill threatens greater corrosion of the rights of the individual in the UK, in the name of "national security".
It smells too of political compromise in the name of coalition politics. Being a party of government does not mean such compromise is inevitable. This is particularly important now, as Conservative forces ratchet up their attacks on rights for all and against the European convention. At this moment the need for the Liberal Democrats to stand firm on issues of principle – for individual rights and open justice, against the security state – is greater than ever.
Secrecy begets secrecy. I have listened to all the arguments, and concluded this is a compromise too far, neither necessary nor fair at this time. The point has been made eloquently in recent days by Dinah Rose QC and Jo Shaw. Their principled arguments have long had my full support and so I have joined them in resigning from the Liberal Democrats. I have done so with regret, given the courageous positions adopted on these issues by Charles Kennedy, Menzies Campbell and Nick Clegg in the past. I still hope that the views of the membership might yet prevail, before the bill passes into law. If not, the Liberal Democrats will have lost integrity on one issue that has truly distinguished them from other parties, and on which they can rightly claim to have made a real difference.
Nikki Roberts is someone a teacher might call a good “all-rounder”:
smart, pretty, lots of friends. Aged 31, she is also a far cry from your
typical Freemason. But that, if the Federation of the International
Order of Co-Freemasonry has its way, is about to change.
Forget secretive circles of white-haired men locking fingers in
strange handshakes, they say. A British branch is in the throes of a
thoroughly modern recruitment drive. It is using Facebook and Twitter to
sign up new members, particularly young women, to its society.
“A
lot of people have misconceptions about what Masonry is,” Ms Roberts
says. Not surprising, given that for centuries members of this
traditionally male club have refused to divulge what goes on behind
closed doors in meetings and ceremonies. “I can say that it [the
Freemasons] is an association, a fellowship if you like, dictated by a
system of morals, with lot of symbols and philosophy...” Roberts
explains. She compares it to an “occult”: “You need to believe in a
divine intelligence or supreme being.”
Since joining the
Freemasons five years ago, Roberts says her life has been transformed.
“I gave up a lucrative job in the City and now I work in health and
social care, something more rewarding,” she says. While cohorts at her
lodge (one of the only mixed gender orders in the world, the British
Federation) range from party-planners to nurses – many of them female –
there are other common elements among members, she says. “The kind of
people it draws are interested in being good people; we have respect for
laws, we like giving to charity... we live by certain morals.” It is a
“life-long commitment”, she adds.
The biggest misconception,
Roberts says, is that women are not suited to joining the club. “People
choose the Masons in order to become more aware and to awaken areas of
their mind to their true nature; women, being naturally nurturing and
intuitive, are particularly responsive to that.” That, however, is a
matter of opinion. Ask Ken Kirk, 86, a former policeman and a member of
the strictly-male United Grand Lodge of England and the answer is clear:
“Mixed gender orders? Absurd.”
At first glance, Hexagon House,
the British Federation’s Masonic headquarters in Surrey, does little to
shift the fusty image. Inside this Surbiton base-camp, the 21st century
seems a world away. The hallway is stuffed full of archaic artefacts,
such as one might expect from a fraternal system dating back 500 years
(the first clubs were recorded in Scotland in the late 16th century):
ceremonial firing glasses, brass etchings and silk wall-hangings adorned
with obscure symbols.
Follow the carved wooden staircase to the
second floor, however, and there are small signs that that this
particular order is trying to embrace the modern world.
On the
shelves, alongside The Book of Mirdad and The House of the Temple (and a
dark cloak hanging on the back of the door) is an A4 folder labelled
“Website statistics” and a novelty mug with the logo “old masons never
die / you’ll have to join to find out why”.
Worldwide, there are 6
million active Freemasons, with 2 million in the US and around 400,000
in Britain. At the moment the Federation of the International Order of
Co-Freemasonry, founded by ideological polymath Annie Besant in 1902,
has around 300 members (the majority of them women), and is one of the
most progressive – and smaller – orders; many orders won’t let a young
women through the door.
Conspiracy theories about what being a
Freemason entails are rife. With famous alumni including Winston
Churchill and Robbie Burns, the most common perception is that this is
an elite club populated by powerful men. That is the dated image the
Federation is seeking to change, explains Suzanne Jozefowicz, its
secretary. “Masonic membership worldwide is dropping,” she says, and an
image refresh is in order. “Freemasonry isn’t about the past, it is
about the future, we need to reflect the world around us.”
Jozefowicz,
who joined the British federation in 1984, is a suitably modern
figurehead for the British Federation. Raised as a Catholic (“But I
asked questions like ‘why isn’t God a woman?’ and never got an answer”),
she worked as a school-teacher and then a rock musician before joining
this, one of the few mixed-sex fellowships, in her twenties. “When
confronted with challenges in life people invariably look for an
explanation... [we] frequently turn to religion but more and more people
are finding that doesn’t necessarily answer the sort of nagging ache
within them to understand the purpose of life and what happens or not
afterwards.”
So what does Freemasonry offer that is so different?
“The natural processes of life come into play,” she says. “Masonry is
experiential, it’s not something you can learn like you would for an
exam... because Masonry is about your own personal search for truth.”
Jozefowicz will confirm that there are various levels of membership,
although not the existence of a supreme 33rd degree, which is one
popular conspiracy.
“The most basic level is the apprentice, as
found in the old building trades,” she says. “He would join with an
expert craftsman and spend his time learning the basics; it was a very
passive learning process...” Jozefowicz explains by way of analogy: “The
apprentice then becomes a journeyman or, as we phrase it, a fellow of
the craft, who is able to do work under the direction of the expert
craftsman but isn’t yet able to go out of his own....”
At that
point, he (or she) is given “some kind of broken token, half of which he
would take, and the other half of which his mentor would keep; so the
journeyman could go to different places but ultimately he was still
bound to his teacher. “In the third and final degree, the secretary
says, “the journeyman reaches his maturity and is able to go out as a
recognised craftsman in his own right.” By which, she says, she also
means “journeywoman”. “We have people of every background in our order,”
she adds. “Now the majority are professionals, but we want to expand
that out. We will open our door to anyone who knocks.”
Heading
back downstairs to the library, past the loo (“It says Gentleman on the
door but actually it is for women, too!”), Jozefowicz employs yet
another analogy to explain what Freemasonry can bring to the
contemporary citizen: “It is about gaining self-knowledge by way of
practical instruments: there is the trowel, the gavel, the chisel, the
ruler, the square... these are metaphorical instruments of measurement
and calculation.”
Keeping their secrets secret is a Masonic
priority. In order to ensure a low drop-out rate, candidates are
thoroughly vetted; only once that has been done does the initiation
begin.
At Hexagon House the magic happens in The Grand Temple
room, replete with astrological symbols painted on the ceiling, there
are wooden thrones surrounded by carved wooden objects and an organ. But
what really goes on once the music starts and the incense has been lit?
“There
is a handshake, yes,” Jozefowicz confirms. “But they are part of the
things that are secret in each ceremony so [what they consist of] is one
thing that I can’t disclose to you.” Even if she did, she says, the
knowledge would be useless out of context: “It’s purely a means of
recognition and generally speaking it’s only used within the lodge.”
What
about the noose, which according to hearsay is placed around the
inductee’s neck? “Let’s not call it a noose, let’s call it a cable-tow,”
Jozefowicz says. “The significance is quite complex... [a similar rope]
is used to moor a ship to its mooring, so it is a way of associating
the person with the lodge, and also a symbol of something referred to as
the silver cord... It is also is a reminder of the mortality of the
individual because obviously if you get hung, you die.”
The
rolled-up trouser leg? “For anything you go through in life there is
always a specific preparation, and Masonry there is the same,” the
secretary explains. “The practice varies, according to which obedience
or which working or which lodge you go to... but always some of that is
physical and some is mental. You will find in other orders that the
rolled up trouser leg is part of that preparation. We tend not to get
too distracted by things like that...”
“We open our arms to
anybody, of any background, religion or gender,” Josefowicz concludes.
“Other Masonic organisations have historically taken a lot more
controlled approach to what they release in public. We have always
advertised our presence, we’ve had numerous open days, people have been
invited even to attend open ceremonies... We hide our answers in plain
sight.”
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks,
arriving for an extradition hearing at the high court in London on 2
November 2011. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP
War by media, says current military doctrine, is as important
as the battlefield. This is because the real enemy is the public at
home, whose manipulation and deception is essential for starting an
unpopular colonial war. Like the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq,
attacks on Iran and Syria require a steady drip-effect on readers' and
viewers' consciousness. This is the essence of a propaganda that rarely
speaks its name.
To the chagrin of many in authority and the media, WikiLeaks
has torn down the facade behind which rapacious western power and
journalism collude. This was an enduring taboo; the BBC could claim
impartiality and expect people to believe it. Today, war by media is
increasingly understood by the public, as is the trial by media of WikiLeaks' founder and editor Julian Assange.
Assange will soon know if the supreme court in London is to allow his appeal against extradition to Sweden,
where he faces allegations of sexual misconduct, most of which were
dismissed by a senior prosecutor in Stockholm. On bail for 16 months,
tagged and effectively under house arrest, he has been charged with
nothing. His "crime" has been an epic form of investigative journalism:
revealing to millions of people the lies and machinations of their
politicians and officials and the barbarism of criminal war conducted in
their name.
For this, as the American historian William Blum
points out, "dozens of members of the American media and public
officials have called for [his] execution or assassination". If he is
passed from Sweden
to the US, an orange jumpsuit, shackles and a fabricated indictment
await him. And there go all who dare challenge rogue America.
In
Britain, Assange's trial by media has been a campaign of character
assassination, often cowardly and inhuman, reeking of jealousy of the
courageous outsider, while books of perfidious hearsay have been
published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or resuscitated
on the assumption that he is too poor to sue. In Sweden this trial by
media has become, according to one observer there, "a full-on mobbing
campaign with the victim denied a voice". For more than 18 months, the
salacious Expressen, Sweden's equivalent of the Sun, has been fed the ingredients of a smear by Stockholm police.
Expressen
is the megaphone of the Swedish right, including the Conservative
party, which dominates the governing coalition. Its latest "scoop" is an
unsubstantiated story about "the great WikiLeaks war against Sweden".
On 6 March Expressen claimed, with no evidence, that WikiLeaks was
running a conspiracy against Sweden and its foreign minister Carl Bildt.
The political pique is understandable. In a 2009 US embassy cable
obtained by WikiLeaks, the Swedish elite's vaunted reputation for
neutrality is exposed as sham. (Cable title: "Sweden puts neutrality in
the Dustbin of History.") Another US diplomatic cable reveals that "the
extent of [Sweden's military and intelligence] co-operation [with Nato]
is not widely known", and unless kept secret "would open up the
government to domestic criticism".
Swedish foreign policy is
largely controlled by Bildt, whose obeisance to the US goes back to his
defence of the Vietnam war and includes his leading role in George W
Bush's Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He retains close ties to Republican party extreme rightwing figures such as the disgraced Bush spin doctor, Karl Rove.
It is known that his government has "informally" discussed Assange's
future with Washington, which has made its position clear. A secret
Pentagon document describes US intelligence plans to destroy WikiLeaks'
"centre of gravity" with "threats of exposure [and] criminal
prosecution".
In much of the Swedish media, proper journalistic
scepticism about the allegations against Assange is overwhelmed by a
defensive jingoism, as if the nation's honour is defiled by revelations
about dodgy coppers and politicians, a universal breed. On Swedish
public TV "experts" debate not the country's deepening militarist state
and its service to Nato and Washington, but the state of Assange's mind
and his "paranoia". A headline in Tuesday's Aftonbladet declared: "Assange's moral collapse".
The article suggests Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks' alleged source, may
not be sane, and attacks Assange for not protecting Manning from
himself. What was not mentioned was that the source was anonymous, that
no connection has been demonstrated between Assange and Manning, and
that Aftonbladet, WikiLeaks' Swedish partner, had published the same
leaks undeterred.
Ironically, this circus has performed under
cover of some of the world's most enlightened laws protecting
journalists, which attracted Assange to Sweden in 2010 to establish a
base for WikiLeaks. Should his extradition
be allowed, and with Damocles swords of malice and a vengeful
Washington hanging over his head, who will protect him and provide the
justice to which we all have a right?
How does a website run by just five full-time staff generate so many scoops? Archie Bland investigates
When the Ministry of Defence first came across Wikileaks, staffers were stunned. "There are thousands of things on here, I literally mean thousands," one of them wrote in an internal email in November 2008. "Everything I clicked on to do with MoD was restricted... it is huge." The website, an online clearing house for documents whose authors would generally prefer them to stay in the private domain, has since been banned from the MoD's internal computers, but it did no good: eventually, that email ended up on Wikileaks. And when a US Army counter-intelligence officer recommended that whistleblowers who leaked to the site be fired, that report ended up on Wikileaks too.
The authorities were right to be worried. If any further proof were needed of the website's extraordinary record in holding the authorities to account, it came this week, in the release of shocking video footage of a gung-ho US helicopter attack in Iraq that killed 12 people, including two unarmed employees of the Reuters news agency.
The US government had resisted Freedom of Information requests from Reuters for years. But when an anonymous whistleblower passed the video on to Wikileaks, all that quickly became futile. An edited version of the tape had received almost 4 million hits on YouTube by last night, and it led news bulletins around the world.
"This might be the story that makes Wikileaks blow up," said Sree Sreenivasan, a digital media professor at New York's Columbia Journalism School. "It's not some huge document with lots of fine print - you can just watch it and you get what it's about immediately. It's a whole new world of how stories get out."
And yet despite Wikileaks' commitment to the freedom of information, there is something curiously shadowy about the organisation itself. Founded, as the group's spokesman Daniel Schmitt (whose surname is a pseudonym) put it, with the intention of becoming "the intelligence agency of the people", the site's operators and volunteers - five full-timers, and another 1,000 on call - are almost all anonymous. Ironically, the only way the group's donors are publicly known is through a leak on Wikileaks itself. The organisation's most prominent figure is Julian Assange, an Australian hacker and journalist who co-founded the site back in 2006. While Assange and his cohorts' intentions are plainly laudable - to "allow whistleblowers and journalists who have been censored to get material out to the public", as he told the BBC earlier this year - some ask who watches the watchmen. "People have to be very careful dealing with this information," says Professor Sreenivasan. "It's part of the culture now, it's out there, but you still need context, you still need analysis, you still need background."
Against all of that criticism, Wikileaks can set a record that carries, as Abu Dhabi's The National put it, "more scoops in its short life than The Washington Post has in the past 30 years". By earning its place as the natural destination for anyone with sensitive information to leak who does not know and trust a particular journalist - so far, despite numerous court actions, not a single source has been outed - Wikileaks has built up a remarkable record.
Yes, it has published an early draft of the script for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and Wesley Snipes' tax returns; but it has also published the "Climategate" emails, an internal Trafigura report on toxic dumping in Ivory Coast, and the standard operating procedures for Guantanamo Bay.
Whatever the gaps in its procedures, there is little doubt that the website is at the forefront of a new information era in which the powerful, corrupt and murderous will have to feel a little more nervous about their behaviour. "There are reasons I do it that have to do with wanting to reform civilisation," Assange said in an interview with salon.com last month. "Of course, there's a personal psychology to it, that I enjoy crushing bastards. I like a good challenge."
Full disclosure: What we wouldn't know without Wikileaks
Trafigura's super-injunction
When commodities giant Trafigura used a super-injunction to suppress the release of an internal report on toxic dumping in the Ivory Coast in newspapers, it quickly appeared on Wikileaks instead. Accepting that the release made suppression futile, Trafigura lifted the injunction.
The CRU's 'Climategate' leak
Emails leaked on the site showed that scientists at the UK's Climate Research Unit, including director Phil Jones, withheld information from sceptics
The BNP membership list
After the site published the BNP's secret membership list in November 2008, newspapers found teachers, priests and police officers among them. Another list was leaked last year. The police has since barred officers from membership.
Sarah Palin's emails
Mrs Palin's Yahoo email account, which was used to bypass US public information laws, was hacked and leaked during the presidential campaign. The hacker left traces of his actions, and could face five years in prison.
Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.
