Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

Journalism against the globalist narrative is now considered ‘terrorism’ in the UK

Published

6 months ago

12 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Richard Medhurst, an ‘internationally accredited journalist’ is allegedly the first journalist to be arrested and held under section 12 of the United Kingdom’s Terrorism Act 2000.

An independent journalist in the United Kingdom has been arrested under terrorism laws upon his return to London.

Richard Medhurst, an “internationally accredited journalist” with strong views against Zionist actions in Israel, was arrested on Thursday, August 15, by six police officers in a move he described on his release as “political persecution.”

“I feel that this is a political persecution and hampers my ability to work as a journalist,” said Medhurst, in a statement released on X (formerly Twitter) on August 19. The reason supplied for his arrest was: “Expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organization.”

Police refused to explain, Medhurst said, although he has been known, in reaction to ongoing IDF slaughtering of innocent Palestinians, to express support in his frequent commentaries for some of Hamas’ violent acts.

Stopped by police as he left the aircraft, Medhurst was taken into a room, searched, had his phone confiscated, and was not permitted to inform his family of his arrest. He spent almost 24 hours in detention in what he described as an attempt to intimidate him for the crime of – journalism.

Describing his journalism as a “public service” and a “counterweight to mainstream media,” Medhurst cited the many other cases of the British liberal-global state using the police to suppress criticism of its foreign and domestic policies.

“Those like myself who are speaking up and reporting on the situation in Palestine are being targeted,” he said.

U.K. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced the redefinition of “terrorism” to include “anti-establishment rhetoric,” “anti-LGBTQI+ sentiment,” “anti-abortion activism,” and any speech online or offline which it deems to be “extreme” – as a report from LifeSiteNews below shows.

The new definition of terrorism now includes regime-critical journalism.

“Many people have been detained in Britain because of their connection to journalism,” explained Medhurst, naming “Julian Assange, [former diplomat] Craig Murray, [GrayZone journalist] Kit Klarenberg, David Miranda, Vanessa Beeley,” who have all been imprisoned, harassed, and detained by U.K. police for their journalism.

Medhurst pointed out that he is the first journalist in the U.K. to be arrested and held under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Medhurst says U.K. terror laws are “out of control” and have “no place in a democracy,” as they are used to “muzzle” reporting on issues such as the “humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”

He argues that “counter terrorism laws should be used to fight actual terrorism” – and not to have “journalists dragged off planes and treated like murderers.”

Medhurst’s argument is an embarrassment for a state which has created the conditions of terrorism abroad and at home, whilst seeming reluctant to stop “actual terrorists” themselves.

The Manchester Arena bombing in 2017 was carried out by a Libyan whose family had left Libya in 1994. He was radicalized alongside the British-backed war launched in 2011 to topple Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Salman Abedi was known to the authorities and they did nothing to stop him. He traveled with his father to fight with Islamist militants against the Libyan government forces the U.K. had helped to destroy. His brother Hashem traveled to Libya to join ISIS and helped to organize the bombing.

Schoolmates and a youth worker had warned authorities Abedi was openly announcing his intention to pursue violent jihad in Manchester. When he did so, he killed 22 men, women, and children, leaving hundreds more with life changing injuries.

In April of this year, over 250 injured survivors began suing MI5, the British state security service, for failing to act on this information and permitting the attack to take place.

In almost every case, violent terrorists are previously known to police and intelligence services in the U.K. In most cases, these terrorists seek to replicate the atrocities committed by Islamist militias who have entered the power vacuum created by U.K. government-backed wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya.

They are radicalized in our homelands by the violence the liberal-global state has unleashed abroad. Yet we are told, in every case, that online censorship must follow every preventable attack. This is absurd, as British writer Douglas Murray has pointed out:

It is this liberal-global state which has smashed nations abroad, driving mass migration into the West. Why do these attacks keep happening? Why does the state not prevent them when the attackers are almost always known to them beforehand?

Instead of preventing terrorism as is their duty, state authorities use anti-terror laws to prevent people like Medhurst – and Kit Klarenberg – from informing the public of the cause of this permanent state of emergency which has replaced our normal lives.

In May 2023 British journalist Kit Klarenberg was “detained and interrogated” by six plainclothes police on his return to the U.K.

Klarenberg was questioned on “his personal opinion on everything from the current British political leadership to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” as The Grayzone reported last May.

His interrogation was seen as “retaliation” by the British state for his “blockbuster reports exposing major British and US intelligence intrigues.” Klarenberg has documented the illegal process of the election of Boris Johnson as Conservative leader and exposed U.K. involvement in Ukrainian acts of sabotage such as the Kerch Bridge. He was accused, of course, of being a Russian agent during his detention.

Klarenberg, an “anti-establishment” independent reporter, saw his targeting as part of a wider campaign by British security services to shut down The Grayzone. Klarenberg’s reporting has disturbed what retired British diplomat Alastair Crooke has termed “the deep structure of the deep state”, showing how laws are used to protect the exercise of permanent policies untouched by elections and undertaken with complete disregard for public opinion.

As The Grayzone report said: “Among Klarenberg’s most consequential exposés was his June 2022 report unmasking British journalist Paul Mason as a U.K. security state collaborator hellbent on destroying The Grayzone and other media outlets, academics, and activists critical of NATO’s role in Ukraine.”

The Grayzone, whose mission statement is to provide “independent news and investigative journalism on empire,” was founded by Max Blumenthal. It was one of many “media outlets, academics, and activists critical of NATO’s role in Ukraine.”

Following the angry protests over the murder of three small girls by a man of Rwandan origin in Southport, “keyboard rioter” Wayne O’Rourke has been jailed for over three years on charges including “anti-establishment rhetoric.” The protests, fueled by decades of ongoing organized child rape gangs, terror bombings, and murders by immigrant populations, were described by one former police chief as “terrorism.” Others have been imprisoned for protesting in person under terrorism charges.

In the U.K., the broad sweep of “terrorism” laws now provide for the arrest, detention and imprisonment of anyone in open disagreement with the liberal-global ideology. If you oppose abortion, permanent war, genocide in Gaza, if you notice these policies have replaced peace with routine atrocities and a police state at home – you are a terrorist.

The liberal-globalist state which has exported terror abroad and imported it at home will do nothing to prevent it taking place, because this chaos is the result of three decades of the bid for worldwide dominance of the liberal-global empire. The liberal-globalist government is not going to save you from the problems it has caused.

The liberal-global state will never protect you from the consequences of its actions. Its actions will prevent you from talking about them. It will protect others from finding out the truth about its crimes, which are so enormous they do not even have a name.

Like the former dictator of Uganda Idi Amin, the liberal global state in Britain now says “there may be freedom of speech – but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.”

Medhurst was handcuffed tightly and locked in a “mobile cage” within a police vehicle, driven to the station and searched again.

After the confiscation of all his electronic equipment, he was “placed in solitary confinement in a cold cell that smelt like urine.”

Medhurst was informed he had the right to make a phone call and to know why he was being locked up. Both rights were “waived,” “given the nature of the offense,” as Medhurst says he was told by police. He was not permitted to make a phone call and the reason for his imprisonment was not explained.

“For many hours, no one knew where I was.” Medhurst spent almost 24 hours in captivity, waiting 15 hours to be interviewed – a delay he says was intended to “rattle him.” He says this failed.

He also strongly rejects the charge he is a “terrorist” – saying his work is dedicated to a diplomatic tradition of peace he inherited from his own family.

“Both my parents won Nobel Peace Prizes for their work as U.N. peacekeepers,” said Medhurst, before noting he has himself been a victim of terror.

“When I was at the international school in Islamabad, the Egyptian embassy adjacent to my school was blown up in a double bombing.”

“I categorically and unequivocally condemn terrorism,” said Medhurst.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 49 mins ago

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Business / 2 hours ago

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Agriculture / 6 hours ago

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Censorship Industrial Complex

Misinformed: Hyped heat deaths and ignored cold deaths

Published on March 5, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

Whenever there’s a heatwave—whether at home or abroad—the media loves to splash it. Politicians and campaigners then jump in to warn that climate change is at fault, and urge us to cut carbon emissions. But they are only telling us one-tenth of the story and giving terrible advice.

Global warming indeed causes more heat waves, and these raise the risk that more people die because of heat. That much is true. But higher temperatures also cause a reduction in cold temperatures, reducing the risk that people die from the cold. Almost everywhere in the world—not just Canada—cold kills 5-15 times more people than heat.

Heat gets a lot of attention both because of its obvious link to climate change and because it is immediately visible—meaning it is photogenic for the media. Heat kills within a few days of temperatures getting too high, because it alters the fluid and electrolytic balance in weaker, often older people.

Cold, on the other hand, slowly kills over months. At low temperatures, the body constricts outer blood vessels to conserve heat, driving up blood pressure. High blood pressure is the world’s leading killer, causing 19 per cent of all deaths.

Depending on where we live, taking into account infrastructure like heating and cooling, along with vehicles and clothes to keep us comfortable, there is a temperature at which deaths will be at a minimum. If it gets warmer or colder, more people will die.

A recent Lancet study shows that if we count all the additional deaths from too-hot temperatures globally, heat kills nearly half a million people each year. But too-cold temperatures are more than nine-times deadlier, killing over 4.5 million people.

In Canada, unsurprisingly, cold is even deadlier, killing more than 12 times more than heat. Each year, about 1,400 Canadians die from heat, but more than 17,000 die because of the cold.

Every time there is a heatwave, climate activists will tell you that global warming is an existential problem and we need to switch to renewables. And yes, the terrible heat dome in BC in June 2021 tragically killed 450-600 people and was likely made worse by global warming. But in that same year, the cold in BC killed 2,500 people, yet these deaths made few headlines.

Moreover, the advice from climate activists—that we should hasten the switch away from fossil fuels—is deeply problematic. Switching to renewables drives up energy prices. How do people better survive heat? With air conditioning. Over the last century, despite the temperature increasing, the US saw a remarkable drop in heat deaths because of more air conditioning. Making electricity for air conditioning more expensive means especially poorer people cannot afford to stay cool, and more people die.

Likewise, access to more heating has made our homes less deadly in winter, driving down cold mortality over the 20th century. One study shows that cheap gas heating in the late 2000s saved 12,500 Americans from dying of cold each year. Making heating more expensive will consign at least 12,500 people to die each year because they can no longer afford to keep warm.

One thing climate campaigners never admit is that current temperature rises actually make fewer people die overall from heat and cold. While rising temperatures drive more heat deaths, they also reduce the number of cold deaths — and because cold deaths are much more prevalent, this reduces total deaths significantly.

The only global estimate shows that in the last two decades, rising temperatures have increased heat deaths by 0.21 percentage points but reduced cold deaths by 0.51 percentage points. Rising temperatures have reduced net global death by 0.3 per cent, meaning some 166,000 deaths have been avoided. The researchers haven’t done the numbers for Canada alone, but combined with the US, increased temperatures have caused an extra 5,000 heat deaths annually, but reduced the number of cold deaths by 14,000.

If temperatures keep rising, cold deaths can only be reduced so much. Eventually, of course, total deaths will increase again. But a new near-global Nature study shows that, looking only at the impact of climate change, the number of total dead from heat and cold will stay lower than today almost up to a 3oC temperature increase, which is more than currently expected by the end of the century.

People claim that we will soon be in a world that is literally too hot and humid to live in, using something called the “wet bulb” temperature. But under realistic assumptions, the actual number of people who by century’s end will live in unlivable circumstances is still zero.

The incessant focus on tens or hundreds of people dying in for instance Indian heatwaves makes us forget that even in India, cold is a much bigger challenge. While heat kills 89,000 people each year, cold kills seven times more at 632,000 every year. Yet, you would never know with the current climate information we get.

Hearing only the alarmist side of heat and cold deaths not only scares people—especially younger generations—but points us toward ineffective policies that drive up energy costs and let more people die from lack of adequate protection against both heat and cold.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Germany’s Shocking War on Online Speech: Armed Police Raids for Online “Insults,” “Hate Speech,” and “Misinformation”

Published on February 23, 2025

By

logo

By Cindy Harper

A shocking discussion on CBS News’ 60 Minutes has highlighted the stark limits of online speech in Germany, where oppressive scenes once thought to be relegated to history and dystopian fiction, show law enforcement has been conducting pre-dawn raids and confiscating electronics from individuals accused of posting content deemed as “hate speech.”
In typical Orwellian fashion, despite these speech raids, officials insist that free speech still exists.
Dr. Matthäus Fink joined host Sharyn Alfonsi to explain how these laws operate and how those targeted by authorities typically react. According to Fink, most individuals are initially shocked when police confront them over online posts.
60 Minutes followed armed police on early morning raids, confiscating devices of people accused of online “hate speech.”
“They say — in Germany we say, ‘Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen,’”(You should still be allowed to say that) Fink remarked, illustrating the disbelief many express when they realize their statements can result in legal action. He noted that many Germans assume they are protected by free speech laws but learn too late that specific kinds of speech are punishable.
Alfonsi delved deeper, questioning the scope of these restrictions. Beyond banning swastika imagery and Holocaust denial, Fink pointed out that publicly insulting someone is also a criminal offense.
“And it’s a crime to insult them online as well?” Alfonsi asked.
Fink affirmed that online insults carry even steeper penalties than face-to-face insults. “The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet,” he elaborated. “Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face to face, you insult me, I insult you, OK. Finish. But if you’re in the internet, if I insult you or a politician…”
Watch the video here.
The segment aired shortly after Vice President JD Vance spoke in Munich, warning about the dangers of European nations suppressing free speech. Vance emphasized that democracy cannot function without the fundamental right to express opinions.
“Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There’s no room for firewalls,” Vance argued. “You either uphold the principle or you don’t.”
In response to the 60 Minutes feature, Vance posted: “Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships.” He added: “This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy.”
You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Thank you.
Continue Reading

Trending

X