The Cost Of Treason: Death, Jail Or Lunch? (Press, 4 December 1979)

In an article published in the London Observer on 4 December 1979, Conor Cruise O’Brien examines the differing responses of Britain to traitors over the past 60 years, focusing on the cases of Sir Roger Casement, Professor Anthony Blunt, and Alan Nunn May. O’Brien highlights public outrage towards these figures, particularly regarding Blunt's perceived leniency compared to the harsh fate of Casement, who was hanged for his betrayal during World War I. Casement's sexual orientation became a factor in his execution, with societal attitudes towards homosexuality influencing public sentiment and actions at the time. In contrast, Blunt, despite admitting to his treasonous activities on behalf of the Soviet Union during a period when Britain was allied with Russia, faced minimal consequences. This disparity raises questions about justice and the rule of law in cases of treason. O’Brien notes that Nunn May, who provided atomic secrets to the Soviets and did not receive any guarantees of immunity, served a prison term but experienced social ostracism upon release, underscoring a lack of solidarity from both the Communist community and the general public due to his admission of guilt. O’Brien points out that while Nunn May confessed to being a spy motivated by his Communist beliefs, Blunt's case reveals a troubling precedent where detected traitors might benefit from confessions in exchange for immunity. This situation could embolden undetected traitors who may now feel they can confess without facing significant repercussions, undermining the seriousness associated with treason. Moreover, O’Brien critiques the establishment's handling of the Blunt affair, suggesting it reflects a broader lack of seriousness regarding institutions of state. He argues that the casual attitude observed among those involved in Blunt's case, marked by an "old boy" network and a sense of cleverness, trivialises the gravity of treason. He reflects on how, in Britain and Ireland, the concept of treason can vary greatly, with figures like Casement being idolised as martyrs rather than traitors. In closing, O’Brien warns that the establishment's failure to address the Blunt situation appropriately provides ammunition for demagogues and undermines public trust. He argues that Ministerial inaction, predicated on the advice of secret services, is insufficient justification for allowing a known traitor to remain in a position of influence, as it risks perpetuating a "whited sepulchre" scenario that ill-serves the public interest. He expresses disappointment that no minister had the courage to openly challenge this dangerous precedent, advocating instead for accountability and integrity within the political realm.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand