A most terrifying piece of legislation has just cleared parliament, with more censorship legislation planned.
The Control of Information - how the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Dr Judith Brown.
The National Security (State Threats) Act.
This terrifying piece of censorship legislation has just cleared parliament and awaits royal assent. Remember this – during World Wars 1 and 2 we did not have such draconian legislation. During the Irish troubles when we had extensive acts of terrorism in our own cities we did not have this type of legislation – the government relied on its D-notices, a gentleman's agreement between the government and the press. Everyone was touched by frightening events in the 1970s and 1980s - when I was a night sister in a hospital in Oxford we frequently had alleged bomb threats, real or by copycat attention seekers, and my daughter was caught up in a terrorist event in London when she was at university. Yet the British media was not controlled in the way it is now.
The most terrifying thing is the purposeful vagueness of censorship legislation – the Online Safety Act (OSA), and now the National Security (State Threats) Act (NSSTA). They are not specific on what is, and what is not, against the law. This means that for the OSA those that are required to censor on behalf of the government – social media companies and search engines – are likely to be fined or even imprisoned for not obeying the laws. This does not only involve people and companies on British soil – it involves global companies whose websites or online activities can reach British citizens.
The NSSTA is similarly vague and this time the requirement is to self-censor, with journalists or those working overseas such as aid workers, restricting who they speak to. The main target seems to be Iran, a country that does not threaten British subjects at all – although British military assets in places like Cyprus may be targeted in the future by Iran. This legislation appears to be in the interests of Israel – a foreign country. Irrespective of your views on Israel, it seems illogical that censorship legislation is passed to protect a country outside our borders, when it was not deemed necessary to pass censorship laws when British people needed protection. If journalists cross the line – either intentionally or unintentionally – they could receive prison sentences as terrorists for up to 16 years.
A great article that criticises this bill – now an Act of Parliament – was written on the Canary website. Remember the Canary has been debanked by Lloyds recently for what reason we and they haven’t been told. You can read the Canary article here, and the article includes comments by the NGO Cage International, Jeremy Corbyn MP., Tribune Magazine, and the great Craig Murray, and ex-ambassador who has himself been subjected to prison sentences for his outspoken speech against injustices.
This reminds me of the imprisonment of Julian Assange, who was similarly jailed for publicising criminal behaviour by the US military. Assange was also subjected to a smear campaign in which he was accused of hacking and rape, neither of which had any substance, but many believed the official agenda. None of those that were captured taking parts in acts of murder have been subjected to any criminal charges - only the person who exposed the acts of ‘collateral murder’ was punished. At that time, Assange had not broken any law. Under the NSSTA it is possible that he could be found guilty under British law of receiving information from an American whistleblower -the Act is worded so vaguely.
In case you want an unbiased account of the campaign against Assange, the documentary The Trust Fall was released when Assange was imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison in UK. Some think the release of this film in Australia in particular was one of the reasons why pressure was put on the US government to drop charges against him, and in the end his ordeal was ended in a plea deal, in which Assange agreed to plead guilty to one small charge in return for his immediate release. This is a film that those who care about free speech should watch and you can find it here.
The Conversion Therapy bill.
Another bill restricting free speech is now going through parliament, and this time it is being publicised by an organisation to the political right, The Free Speech Union (FSU). This time it involves those who are speaking to children about their gender identity – again a vague notion that seems to be taken up by those who follow the agenda rather than thinking critically. I am a woman and have been female for nearly 80 years, but really, I don’t know how I ‘feel’ as a woman. I just am who I am. James Esses is a therapist who counsels children and young adults on gender identity issues, and fears that this bill could put therapists and parents at risk of imprisonment if they discuss gender identity. This can in itself include some challenging statements, including giving out accurate biological information. Again, this legislation that threatens free speech is written in vague terms, but with onerous punishments for offending, including fines, imprisonment, or the loss of work – or for parents watching their beloved children being subjected to persuasive gender identity information. There is a link to a petition against this bill if you want to sign it, you can find the podcast here.
Andy Burnham.
We are about to have a change of our British PM once again. There are some reports of favourable outcomes – such as the end of trials without juries, and possibly the end of Digital ID – although realistically it might be too late. There have been no suggestions that he would repeal the OSA or the NSSTA. There are no suggestions that the Green Party, Reform, Reclaim, or the Conservatives would do any better with free speech than Labour. We all need to be making sure that our communities and our politicians know that free speech is a treasured right that we are not prepared to give up.
Remember this - if people have been indoctrinated that we need to protect against speech - labelled as hate speech, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, and so forth, they do not know they have been indoctrinated. If they knew, they wouldn’t hold those views. It’s hard to change minds when people think what they say is right, even though they haven’t investigated legislation, biological facts, or original research. We all risk unpopularity and discrimination for standing for free speech, but its a price that must be paid to ensure a free world for our children and grandchildren.