Censored by the Fabians PDF Print E-mail
G8
The debate between Nicholas Bayne and Gill Hubbard and David Miller on the G8 posted today on Spinwatch was initiated by the Fabian Society in May this year. We have posted the full exchange on spinwatch, but the version on the Fabian Society website has been censored to remove information on the involvement of Nicholas Bayne in a corporate lobbying organisation. Our reference to this was intended to prompt a reply from Bayne, but instead he emailed on the 22 May to say 'I have made my case on the G8 summits and I have nothing to add.' Given the argument we were making we surmised that Bayne did not want to debate the role of LOTIS, the corporate lobby group arguing for further liberalisation of trade in services, particularly public services, in both the developing world and the West. Prompted by this lack of response I emailed Heawood on the 31 May to ask when the debate was going online. On the 15 June Heawood emailed to say 'The Fabian Review will be distributed next week, and I'll put the debate up on the website at the same time. I would have put it up sooner, but we've been having problems with our server.' I emailed back the same day asking 'can you confirm that you will put the whole exchange on the website?'. I got no reply. In the absence of any sign of either the magazine or the exchange, I emailed again on the 29th of June and then around the 11th of July, phoned Heawood and followed up with an email on 12th July. By this time the G8 summit was over and all attention had moved on, ensuring that the debate would gain less prominence than if it had been published as expected before the summit.

Finally we got an email to say that one sentence on Bayne's role as chair of the LOTIS committee had been removed. According to Heawood 'Nicholas tells me he doesn’t mind the reference to his involvement with LOTIS, but the leaked discussions came after his time there. I’m happy to host vigorous debate, but I have to be extremely careful about potential libel, as you can understand.' We responded asking what the libel issue was. Heawood replied 'My issue with your comments at the end of the debate was that they were gratuitous and – as I discovered from Nicholas Bayne – untrue.... As NB wasn’t on the committee at the time represented in the leaked minutes, this simply isn’t factually correct. Nor is it reasonable to say that his concern for these issues is undermined by his previous role. I share some of your concerns, but I can’t endorse your conclusions, and I’ve chosen not to repeat them on our website. If you want to reinstate this point, please remove any reference to the Fabian Society from your site.' This response left us mystified as the leaked minutes of the LOTIS committee quite clearly state that Bayne chaired the committee at all its meetings between 23 September 1999 and 23 March 2000 (See: http://www.gatswatch.org/LOTIS/LOTISapp1.html).

So, 'libel' having melted into thin air and 'inaccuracy' found to be accurate after all, we are left with Heawood's objection that our argument was 'not reasonable' and 'gratuitous'. Alternatively, one could argue that we have exposed Bayne, posing as a disinterested observer, as actually up to his neck in active work in favour of corporate globalisation. Confronted with the truth, the neoliberals and their supporters turn tale and run from open debate as Bayne appears to have done.

We should not be surprised that the Fabian Society would indulge in such behaviour, it is what they have always done. The notion that we should remove 'any reference to the Fabian Society' from Spinwatch if we reinstated the disputed sentence is an unfortunate and unpleasant reminder that the parameters of legitmate debate in the 'left' press are pretty tightly drawn.

In the spirit of openness and accuracy we include a copy of the full email exchange below. At the time of writing we have had no response to our last email.


----------
From: "Jonathan Heawood"
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:33:18 +0100
To: "David Miller"
Subject: debate

Hi David – You and Gill should be receiving your copies of the magazine in the post today or tomorrow. I’m attaching the full debate as a Word document to this email. The only significant edit I’ve made is to remove your reference to the leaked emails. Nicholas tells me he doesn’t mind the reference to his involvement with LOTIS, but the leaked discussions came after his time there. I’m happy to host vigorous debate, but I have to be extremely careful about potential libel, as you can understand.

Best,
Jonathan

Jonathan Heawood
Editorial Director
Fabian Society

----------
From: David Miller
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:14:05 +0100
To: Jonathan Heawood
Cc: gill hubbard
Subject: Re: debate

Thanks.

What is the issue of libel though?

Do we mis-characterise Nicholas's views or misreport the minutes?

David
----------
From: "Jonathan Heawood"
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:59:07 +0100
To: "David Miller"
Subject: RE: debate

Hi David – The debate is up at: http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/press_office/display.asp?id=457&type=news&cat=24

My issue with your comments at the end of the debate was that they were gratuitous and – as I discovered from Nicholas Bayne – untrue. He wasn’t particularly bothered by your claims, but did feel after that point that the debate wasn’t worth continuing, as it was simply going in circles. You said: ‘In your own case, your professed concern for Africa, Climate and Chechnya, is rather undermined by the fact that in 1999-2000 you were a corporate lobbyist pushing for the liberalisation of financial markets as chair of the Liberalisation of Trade in Services (LOTIS) lobby group. Your free market agenda is revealed in the leaked minutes of the LOTIS committee on the Gats-watch site (http://www.gatswatch.org/LOTIS/index.html).’ As NB wasn’t on the committee at the time represented in the leaked minutes, this simply isn’t factually correct. Nor is it reasonable to say that his concern for these issues is undermined by his previous role. I share some of your concerns, but I can’t endorse your conclusions, and I’ve chosen not to repeat them on our website. If you want to reinstate this point, please remove any reference to the Fabian Society from your site.

I had hoped that this debate would generate a constructive exchange of views and some positive proposals. Instead, it rapidly descended into name-calling. I was rather taken aback when you told Nicholas: ‘You undermine your professed detachment by claiming the role of the G8 is “on balance positive”.’ Isn’t the effect here to undermine your own professional detachment as an academic?

Jonathan

Jonathan Heawood
Editorial Director
Fabian Society
11 Dartmouth Street
London SW1H 9BN

----------
From: David Miller
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:30:03 +0100
To: Jonathan Heawood
Subject: Re: debate

Jonathan,

Thanks for being good enough to let me know your thinking. Perhaps you could have told me this earlier, so we could have sorted any misunderstandings or inaccuracies out.

I am a bit mystified by the comment that Nicholas was not the Chair of the LOTIS committee during the period. The leaked minutes from 23 September 1999 through to the 23 March 2000 clearly label Nicholas as the chair at each meeting. (Have a look: http://www.gatswatch.org/LOTIS/LOTISapp1.html). Perhaps the minutes are inaccurate?

Perhaps Nicholas has since recanted some of the views evident in his participation in the LOTIS committee. That would be interesting to find out. But predictably (in our view) Nicholas did not want to continue the debate.

I am a little mystified about the reasons you give for excising the sentence. You say 'Nor is it reasonable to say that his concern for these issues is undermined by his previous role.'. I accept that this is your view, but the sentence on the leaked minutes does not make that point. The previous sentence does, but you have left that in.

As to the name calling, we did not attack Nicholas' credibility in our first email. As far as I can see we have not indulged in name calling, although we did think the question of Nicholas' credibility was a legitimate issue for debate.

The notion that the G8 could be seen play a positive role (even 'on balance') seems to me - in the light of the evidence - to be completely preposterous, but I do recognise that there are contrary views. I am not sure that I have ever thought of myself as having a 'professional detachment' as an academic. What is most interesting in this little exchange is how quickly discussions about the disastrous state of the planet runs into the buffers of 'legitimate' debate in the mainstream and even the left press.

Best

David

----------
< Prev   Next >