In the UK, the recent news cycle has been dominated by controversy surrounding Dominic Cummings, a key aide to the government accused of breaking the lockdown rules he was part of implementing. Although the government has sought to draw a line under the affair, Cummings' refusal to apologise or resign for his actions has kept the story front and centre of every major British media outlet.
The story has attracted such public ire and his explanation raised enough questions that Cummings should take responsibility and resign, even if (from his point-of-view) only to preserve public faith in the government at an unstable time. In the bigger picture, though, the interest in the Cummings affair is grossly disproportionate to its real-world importance: he isn't the first member of the British body politic to ignore lockdown rules and even has a better (if still questionable) justification than others. The biggest concern raised by this controversy has been the press allowing ideological divisions to override their ethical responsibility to cover the world-changing stories happening elsewhere.
As the Cummings affair monopolises UK press coverage, China's parliament has passed an anti-sedition bill making it illegal for anyone to undermine China's authority in Hong Kong. According to the Telegraph, 'The law criminalises separatism, subversion, terrorism, foreign interference and “acts” that threaten national security'. US national security advisor, Robert O'Brien, said the move suggests China is 'basically going to take over Hong Kong' and implied that sanctions will be imposed if the territory's autonomy is compromised.
In other words, while China is violating the 'one country, two systems' principles fundamental to the UK ceding the territory in 1997, the British press is too busy debating whether a government aide broke quarantine laws to notice.
This is not to argue that Cummings and the government should not be held to account for allegedly violating the lockdown laws they forced on the rest of the country and which have caused so much suffering. It is to highlight the irresponsibility of allowing ideological entrenchment to highlight a relatively minor domestic controversy over a major international issue where the UK bears considerable responsibility towards the people whose autonomy is being crushed by the communist Chinese State.
The press' obsession with Cummings is as ferociously ideological as Cummings himself. Cummings is regarded as a key player behind both the 2016 Brexit vote and the overwhelming Tory electoral success in the 2020 election. The accusations against him of disregarding lockdown rules instinctively ring true because it would not be the first time since Boris Johnson took over as Prime Minister that the Tories, advised by Cummings, have ridden roughshod over the spirit of the law in favour of attempting to exploit technical loopholes: recall the failed prorogation of parliament last September.
Although ostensibly pushed into the background by the COVID-19 outbreak, the Brexit issue looms large. The British metropolitan left are out for revenge over Cummings' role both in the 2016 referendum result and his supposed determination to secure an 'Australia-style' (aka: no deal) exit. Their readiness to support protesters harassing Mr. Cummings' family in London (organised by an anti-Brexit activist group) and Sky News reporters doing the same to his family in Durham - such behaviour ironically only reinforcing Cummings' story of being concerned for his family's safety due to protests and death threats - shows that this has gone beyond the political and into the personal. For those on the Brexit-supporting right, their ardent defence of Cummings is based not only on his role in securing the UK's exit from the EU, but also, as always, a reaction to the actions of their counterparts on the left.
In every meaningful respect, the actions of Dominic Cummings are the least interesting and important part of his story. For one thing, his ill-fitting shirt at the press conference is at least as much of a crime as what he's accused of. While the left and the right have been squabbling over whether a government aide broke lockdown rules, nobody has pointed out the authoritarian cruelty of rules which penalise parents for seeking care for their children, especially when the risks to children from COVID-19 are virtually nil.
Arguing the technical minutia of Cummings actions also reinforces the dangerous idea that laws should be considered absolute and obeyed to the letter even at the cost of one's health or that of one's child. This point is not made in defence of Cummings - who argued that his journey to Durham was for reasons of childcare - but as a general point about the creeping acceptance of authoritarian rule which the COVID-19 pandemic has engendered.
Arguing the technical minutia of Cummings actions also reinforces the dangerous idea that laws should be considered absolute and obeyed to the letter even at the cost of one's health or that of one's child. This point is not made in defence of Cummings - who argued that his journey to Durham was for reasons of childcare - but as a general point about the creeping acceptance of authoritarian rule which the COVID-19 pandemic has engendered.
Finally, we return to the people of Hong Kong, whom the UK left at the mercy of the Chinese State in 1997 under the agreement that their system of common law and political and financial autonomy would be respected until 2047. Now that the facade has crumbled after years of constant pressure - a similar anti-sedition bill to the one passed today was proposed in 2003 - the British media should be pressuring the government to take action against China for so blatantly reneging on its obligations to safeguard the autonomy of Hong Kong and its people. The UK should be taking responsibility and leading the world in defence of its former territory against a full takeover by the Chinese State. Instead, it is busy debating the legality of one man's trip to Durham.
OTHER ARTICLES YOU MAY ENJOY
