WIKILEAKS is at the centre of a new row after publishing uncensored police files from the investigation into a child killer, including lurid evidence and wild accusations against one of Belgium’s leading politicians.
A senior prosecutor vowed to try to block the 1235-page dossier, much of which is drawn from interviews with rent boys and with Marc Dutroux, a paedophile who was jailed for life in 2004 for killing four girls and a former associate.
It is the latest controversy to engulf the whistleblowing website – the founder of which, Julian Assange, is being investigated in Sweden on suspicion of molesting two women. Mr Assange denies any wrongdoing.
Last month WikiLeaks was widely condemned for publishing uncensored secret reports on the Afghan war, some of which named informants now said to be at risk of reprisals.
The Dutroux case left a deep scar on the Belgian psyche because it exposed a hidden world of child sex abuse but also triggered unproven conspiracy theories of a paedophile network reaching into the highest levels of society.
A leading Belgian politician was cleared of any suspicion of paedophilia or connection with Dutroux in 1996 after being named during the investigation. The dossier published by WikiLeaks revives those allegations against the politician, adding to the sense of outrage in Belgium.
“There is some true, some false, some very disparate information here, involving some people who have done nothing wrong, who have simply been mentioned in an investigation and are thus exposed to public contempt, whereas all this material should have remained classified,” said Cedric Visart de Bocarme, the prosecutor general of Liege.
“There is some wild stuff in these documents. Some witnesses are prejudiced and would say anything to try to blacken their neighbour, to make themselves seem whiter than white.”
Mr De Bocarme said he was trying to find a way to block access in Belgium to the document on the WikiLeaks website but would not say how this might be possible. He rejected any suggestion that publication might be defended as in the public interest.
“This is a false defense in my view because WikiLeaks is giving information which is false and which invades private life,” he said. “It is scandalous to use the explanation of transparency because inquiries of this kind should remain.
Be the first to comment