Saying it like it is
Writers who put extra emphasis on appearing detached and clear-headed often fall prey to, or make use of, the middle ground fallacy
Having a voice, an audience, a platform is a privilege not afforded to many. Those who are afforded this luxury wield power, a control over the flow and dissemination narratives. Those that abuse this power to propagate false narratives represent a particularly strenuous curse. This is because (i) the large scale and brisk consumption of media today makes the damage they do often irreparable and quite substantial (ii) there’s no way to take that power away from them.
Some mainstream writers obfuscate and distort the issues in order to propagate false narratives. Particular attention is to be paid to illegitimate, false arguments, or fallacies, that are used to achieve this end. Since renowned columnist Babar Sattar has welcomed criticism of his piece ‘A perfect heist’ — a commentary on the SC probe faced by Sharif family, published in The News on 19 November — we can use it as sort of a case study.
Writers who put extra emphasis on appearing detached and clear-headed often fall prey to, or make use of, the middle ground fallacy. It has also been a preferred method of obfuscation for media whenever the ruling family runs into legal trouble. The middle ground fallacy, or the argument to moderation, is the tendency to believe that the extreme arguments in any debate are always wrong, that ‘the truth lies somewhere in the middle’. Of course that is not the case. The argument supported by the facts, no matter how extreme, is where the truth lies.
We see this in the article in question as the agenda is set in the opening para:
“Is the explanation presented by the Sharifs regarding ownership of the London flats believable or plausible? The answer depends on what you already believe.”
The implication is that the evidence for the extreme positions is insufficient, the one extreme being that the Sharifs’ explanation is not true, the other that it is. By the end of the article, the author will grant the Sharif argument plausibility, but hold off deeming it true. That is the key to this method of obfuscation; it presents a false compromise, a status quo. The status quo, obviously, supports the ones in power.
The facts though do not support the status quo, they support the extreme position; the explanation of the ruling Sharif family regarding ownership of London flats is not believable. So to create enough confusion regarding this, Mr Sattar lends credence to claims that have none, sometimes passing them off as facts, employs more logical fallacies and in the process presents a distorted picture of the case.
Deconstructing all of it is impermissible due to space constraints, but looking at key passages should be informative still. Most telling is the passage justifying the main question; ownership of the flats, or the Al Thani letter story:
“In an interview oft played by the media since the Panama leaks, Hassan Nawaz said that the flats were rented. We now see the mention of ‘ground rent and service charges’ paid by the Sharifs in the Al Thani affidavit and the response filed by Sharif siblings. As no money was paid to the Al Thani family, there is no money trail to be established and no laundered money to be justified. The only question that remains is that of truthful declarations and valid documents.”
This is a classic example of the cherry picking fallacy, or the suppressed evidence fallacy, employed at leisure by Mr Sattar. What this means is that there is a body of evidence available, but the author only cites the evidence that supports the argument he wants to forward, and omits all of the evidence that counters it. The Sharif family has made a number of statements about the properties in question. One of Kulsoom Nawaz states that the flats were bought and not rented, before 2000. One by Maryam Nawaz states that the flats have never been owned by the family at any time. The one by Hussain says they were bought around 2006 and money was transferred officially to Britain from Saudi Arabia, not to Qatar or the Al Thani family.
Majority, if not every single facet, of the Al Thani story is contradicted by every statement of every member of the Sharif family. The Supreme Court noted that even the prime minister’s statements are contradicted by the letter presented before them.
The author does not notice the contradictions because he is employing the suppressed evidence technique; picking the one statement that, he contends, supports the Al Thani story. Just that it does not. Here he uses the ‘contextomy’ fallacy. This is to say that the reference quoted does not actually support the argument made, just the context is removed to make it sound like it does. The ‘ground rent’ mentioned in the Al Thani letter refers to an annual token rent paid on leased land in the UK, such as the one the properties in question are built upon.
On to the conclusion where Mr Sattar states that the ‘buyer’, i.e. the Sharifs and the ‘seller’, i.e. the Al Thani family, presently have the same story. Right? Wrong
In the interview Mr Sattar has referenced, Hassan Nawaz states that quarterly ‘rent’ not ground rent, is paid for the flats to the owners and the money comes from Pakistan. If that interview were to be believed there must be quarterly payments to Al Thani family from Pakistan; the interview contradicts the Al Thani statement and actually establishes that there is a money trail, from Pakistan no less.
More distortion is on the way. Let’s look at a troubling passage which Mr Sattar uses to draw his conclusion:
“Each piece of the Sharif story, seen in isolation, is plausible. Could Mian Sharif have invested AED12 million in the Al Thani real-estate business? People make minority co-investments on the basis of trust without written formalities all the time. Do business families settle investments and make payouts on the basis of profits and mutual understanding? Sure they do. Can grandparents nominate a favoured grandchild to inherit a particular asset or property? Yes. Are such transactions illegal or invalid if not reduced to writing? No.
Plausible or not, does the story sound truthful? That depends on what side you are on.”
Mr Sattar is answering questions no one has ever asked. Nature of family investments, profit sharing, inheritance? These have nothing to do with the case at hand, which revolves around, in Sattar’s own words, ‘ownership of the flats, declaration of ownership, source of funds for the acquisition and money trail’.
On the questions identified as key ones by the author, the answers are pretty clear. The Sharifs have not provided a money trail, they have not provided evidence to refute the documents leaked from Mossack Fonseca and there is evidence, in the form of a UK court ruling, crediting them with the ownership of Park Lane properties before 2006. The UK court ruling refers to the Al Tawfik case and is the most critical piece of evidence suppressed by Mr Sattar.
The most bizarre type of reasoning in the article is saved for the defence of Maryam Nawaz. Have a read:
“Maryam says she is the trustee and not the owner of the offshore companies that own the flats. The allegation against her rests on letters in which the law firm representing the offshore companies identify her as beneficial owner to a foreign investigation agency. But to refute the allegation, the Sharifs have produced before the SC a trust deed executed by Maryam and Hussain (witnessed and verified by a London attorney in February 2006), where Maryam agrees to hold 49 shares of Coomber Group Inc on trust for Hussain.
Each piece of the Sharif story, seen in isolation, is plausible.”
Maryam is listed as sole beneficial owner of the firms Nielsen and Nescoll, who in turn hold the Park Lane properties. The omission here is that letters identifying Maryam as owner of Nescoll and Nielsen mention that Mossack Fonseca were unaware of any trust associated with them. The tremendous error in logic here though is this: COOMBER GROUP INC is not NESCOLL or NIELSEN. You cannot refute allegations regarding the latter two with a document regarding the former.
It is like somebody tells you that the milk has turned sour, so you take a bite of the apple and say ‘it seems fine to me’. The milk not fine. This isn’t how it works.
On to the conclusion where Mr Sattar states that the ‘buyer’, i.e. the Sharifs and the ‘seller’, i.e. the Al Thani family, presently have the same story. Right? Wrong. Wrong. Not right. The Al Thani family is not the seller. There is zero evidence to establish that they were ever owners of the Park Lane flats. If they provide the court with purchase deeds, that would help.
That has not happened though. Nothing the Sharifs claim is backed by proof, it is contradicted by their statements and it is refuted by documentation. Yet the reader will leave Babar Sattar’s column with a very different impression. This is the art of the wordsmith. To just subtly pass on claim as fact, shroud what is fact and put into question what is established, all in a seemingly articulate, coherent manner. This is the art of obfuscation.
To recap: Babar Sattar’s assertions are just plain false not because of what you already believe, or what side you are on, but because of the facts relevant to them.
On money trail; there is none.
On ownership; the Sharif position is not supported by any documentary evidence and negated by UK court judgment.
On date of purchase; the Sharif position is not supported by any documentary evidence and negated by UK court judgement.
On Maryam’s status as trustee, in turn need for declaration; the Sharif position is not supported by any documentary evidence and negated by documents leaked in the Panama papers.
Oh, and the Sharif position on all questions is proved false by previous statements from every member of the family.
These are the facts. There is no middle ground here.
