Thesis introduction: protections for whistleblowers

I have 36 days until my thesis due... 36 days until freedom! In the mean time, I'm slaving over my computer to get this right. Here is a tid-bit of my intro :)

“Driven by moral considerations”; perceptions of and protections for whistleblowers

"A legal system that doesn’t distinguish between leaks to the press in the public interest and treason against the nation will not only produce unjust results, but will deprive the public of critical information that is necessary for democratic accountability". (McGeough 2013)

            The case of United States v. Pfc. Bradley E. Manning illustrates such a legal system. Bradley Manning has been heavily prosecuted for revealing proof of war crimes and military misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States’ military and government. Manning also released over 250,000 US diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, exposed the existence of corruption throughout global diplomacy, and placed the US in an internationally embarrassing situation. The case of Bradley Manning is significant as it demonstrates how freedom of speech and the ability of whistleblowers to disclose important information in the public interest are heavily restricted within the public sector. It also exhibits how results of technological advancements of the twenty-first century, such as WikiLeaks, have provided a platform for the more public dissemination of information, therefore extending the capacity and impact of freedom of speech.

            Whistleblowing is not the glamorous phenomenon it appears to be. Individuals who expose the crimes or misconduct of their organisations are subjected to serious retaliatory acts, along with criminal prosecution or civil litigation. This is primarily due to the lack of protection provided to whistleblowers by their governments or employers. Although whistleblowers are heralded as moral heroes by the public, they are often targeted and condemned by those against whom they have disclosed information. This significant discrepancy in regard to how whistleblowers are perceived is problematic as it deceives individuals into believing that revealing wrongdoing is ethically correct and their actions will be rewarded. However, the result is more likely to lead to termination of employment, criminal prosecution or civil action for breach of confidentiality. This division within modern societies as to whether whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning are indeed criminals or freedom fighters increases the life-changing risks that whistleblowers already face.

            This thesis argues that government legislation and organisational policies are inadequate in their protection of whistleblowers. While governments and businesses claim that their policies encourage and promote whistleblowing, the processes that follow information disclosure often fail to provide even the most basic of protections, such as the assurance of confidentiality. This thesis also argues these failures in the official whistleblowing procedures influence and reinforce the divisive perceptions of those who expose wrongdoing. Legislative protections have been adopted and implemented in all Australian states and territories, as well as at the Commonwealth level. All these policies contain various strengths and weaknesses; however, the weaknesses are the aspects that are placing whistleblowers at the greatest risk. The need to allow individuals to turn to the media with their information, as well as the need to permit members within intelligence agencies, like Bradley Manning, to speak out against misconduct is essential to the existence of a fair and transparent democracy. These protections must be provided in order for the body of legislation to adhere to its objective: to encourage and facilitate information disclosure. The state and federal legislation of Australia will be analysed and evaluated in terms of its ability to successfully protect whistleblowers, and will be compared to legislative protections in the US, which has been applied in the Manning case. By determining how an individual such as Bradley Manning would be treated and protected (or not protected) in an Australian jurisdiction, the adequacy of the legislative and procedural protections can be measured. 

(all work is my own)