Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

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

Published

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.

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

Brownstone Institute

Freedumb, You Say?

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By Gabrielle Bauer 

“Authorities have attacked, detained, prosecuted, and in some cases killed critics, broken up peaceful protests, closed media outlets, and enacted vague laws criminalizing speech that they claim threatens public health”

Didn’t give much thought to freedom until four years ago, at age 63. Freedom was just there, like the water surrounding a goldfish. And then the Covid-19 pandemic blew in, the world locked down, and admonitions to “stay the ‘$^#&’ home” blazed through social media. No freedom was too important to discard in the name of public safety: jobs, family businesses, artistic endeavours, public meetings, social connections that kept despair at bay, all took a backseat to the grim business of saving grandma (who ended up getting Covid anyway). No discussion of moral or practical trade-offs, no pushback from the press, nothing. It felt wrong to me on a cellular level.

Apparently I was the only one in my middle-class liberal circle to harbour misgivings about this astonishing new world. If I tried, ever so timidly, to articulate my concerns on Facebook or Twitter, the online warriors shot back with a string of epithets. “Go lick a pole and catch the virus,” said one. “Crawl back into your cave, troglodyte,” said another. And my all-time favourite: “You’re nothing but a mouth-breathing Trumptard.”

From the get-go, I perceived Covid as more of a philosophical problem than a scientific one. As I wrote on more than one occasion, science can inform our decisions, but not dictate them. What ultimately powers our choices are the values we hold. I saw Covid as a morality play, with freedom and safety cast as the duelling protagonists, and it looked like safety was skipping to an easy victory.

It was a heady time for the health bureaucrats, whose increasingly arcane rules betrayed a naked impulse to control: the Canadian high-school students required to use masks on both their faces and their wind instruments during band practice, the schoolchildren forced (for hygiene reasons) to study on their knees for hours in an Alaska classroom, the “glory-hole” sex advised by the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. The lack of public pushback against these absurdities heightened my awareness of the fragility of our freedoms.

One of the earliest memes to surface during the pandemic was “muh freedumb.” The locution became a shorthand for a stock character – a tattooed man wearing camo gear and a baseball cap, spewing viral particles while yelling about his rights. A selfish idiot. The memes kept coming: “Warning, cliff ahead: keep driving, freedom fighter.” “Personal freedom is the preoccupation of adult children.” Freedom, for centuries an aspiration of democratic societies, turned into a laughing stock.

Eventually, pro-freedom voices began trickling into the public arena. I wasn’t alone, after all. There were others who understood, in the words of Telegraph writer Janet Daley, that the institutional response to Covid-19 had steamrolled over “the dimension of human experience which gives meaning and value to private life.” Lionel Shriver decried how “across the Western world, freedoms that citizens took for granted seven months ago have been revoked at a stroke.” And Laura Dodsworth brought tears to my eyes when she wrote, in her 2021 book A State of Fear, that she feared authoritarianism more than death.

Once the vaccines rolled out, the war on freedom of conscience went nuclear. If you breathed a word against the products, or even the mandates, you were “literally killing people.” The hostility towards the “unvaxxed” culminated in a Toronto Star front page showcasing public vitriol, splashed with such sentiments as: “I honestly don’t care if they die from Covid. Not even a little bit.”

This, too, felt viscerally wrong. I knew several people who had refused the vaccine, and they all had well-articulated reasons for their stance. If they didn’t fully trust the “safe and effective” bromide recycled by all government and pharmaceutical industry spokespeople, I could hardly blame them. (And I say this as someone who writes for Big Pharma and got five Covid shots.)

One of the most deplorable casualties of Covid culture was freedom of expression, a core principle in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Experts speaking publicly about the harms of lockdown faced systematic ostracism from mainstream media, especially left-wing news outlets. By early 2021, Human Rights Watch estimated that at least 83 governments worldwide had used the Covid-19 pandemic to violate the lawful exercise of free speech and peaceful assembly.

“Authorities have attacked, detained, prosecuted, and in some cases killed critics, broken up peaceful protests, closed media outlets, and enacted vague laws criminalizing speech that they claim threatens public health,” the group wrote in a media release. “The victims include journalists, activists, healthcare workers, political opposition groups, and others who have criticized government responses to the coronavirus.”

But what about misinformation? Doesn’t it kill people? Newsflash: misinformation has always existed, even before TikTok. It’s up to each of us to sift the credible folks from the cranks. The best defence against misinformation is better information, and it’s the policy wonks’ job to provide it. Modern science itself depends on this tug-of-war of ideas, which filters out weaker hypotheses and moves stronger ones ahead for further testing.

Besides, misinformation comes not just from cranks, but from “official sources” – especially those tasked with persuading the public, rather than informing it. Remember when Rochelle Walensky, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US, asserted that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus?” Or when Anthony Fauci maintained that getting vaccinated makes you a “dead end” in the chain of transmission? I rest my case.

The marketplace of ideas is like a souk, with a lot of hollering and arguing and the odd snatched purse – and that’s exactly how it should be. It’s an ingenious and irreplaceable process for getting to the truth. There are few ideas too sacrosanct to question or too ridiculous to consider. That’s why, unlike just about everyone in my left-leaning circle, I take no issue with Elon Musk’s shakedown of the old Twitter, now the Wild West of X.

Under Musk’s algorithms, my feed has become a true philosophical souk, with wildly disparate views smashing into each other, leaving me to sift through the rubble in search of a gold nugget or two. Love him or hate him, Musk offers a much-needed counterweight to the ideological lockstep in much of the mainstream media. And when it comes to free speech, Musk has put his money where his mouth is: when media personality Keith Olbermann recently hopped on X, where he boasts a million followers, to call for Musk’s arrest and detainment, Musk made no move to censor him. Works for me.

While the “old normal” has thankfully returned to our daily lives, save the odd mask in a shopping mall or subway car, the stench of censorship that blew in with the pandemic has yet to dissipate. An obsession with disinformation permeates the zeitgeist, spurring lawmakers in several Western countries to censor the flow of thoughts and ideas that gives a free society its pulse.

We cannot excise personal freedom from a democratic society, even in the interests of the “public good,” without poisoning the roots of democracy itself. Article 3 of UNESCO’s 2005 Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights states this plainly: “The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.” In our post-pandemic reality, the statement seems almost quaint. Nonetheless, it expresses an enduring truth: that a democracy must never discard the idea of freedom – even in a pandemic.

Freedom desperately needs a comeback from its current incarnation as an expendable frill. In my own small way I’m trying to make this happen: never much of an activist before Covid, I’m now part of a small group preparing to launch a Free Speech Union in Canada, modelled after the highly successful one in the UK. The organisation will offer legal advice to individuals facing censorship, cancellation, or job loss because of their words. I look forward to supporting people caught in this anti-freedom web, including those whose words I heartily disagree with.

My newfound respect for free speech is also what propels me to keep talking about Covid. The response to the pandemic exceeded the bounds of public health, and we need to expose the forces that drove it. Here’s Daley again: “The world went crazy. There is no other way to account for what was an almost nihilistic dismantling not just of particular liberties and rights, but of the very idea of liberty.” We can’t let it happen again.

Republished from Perspective Media

Author

Gabrielle Bauer is a Toronto health and medical writer who has won six national awards for her magazine journalism. She has written three books: Tokyo, My Everest, co-winner of the Canada-Japan Book Prize, Waltzing The Tango, finalist in the Edna Staebler creative nonfiction award, and most recently, the pandemic book BLINDSIGHT IS 2020, published by the Brownstone Institute in 2023

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Will Trump’s Second Chance Bring Justice for Edward Snowden?

Published on

By

Snowden has been indicted as a “spy” and is considered to be one by many, even though the revelations from the leaked documents were not handed to another country, but publicly released to benefit the rights of the citizens of his own.

If some of the key picks for President Donald Trump’s cabinet have their way, Edward Snowden might finally get pardoned.

Administrations have been coming and going over the past more than a decade in the US. Still, Snowden, an NSA whistleblower who opened the eyes of Americans – and the rest of the word – to the shocking scale of mass surveillance and personal data collection perpetrated by the agency, is still in exile.

That’s because in his country, instead of being honored like, say, Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers, Snowden is still treated as a fugitive from justice.

Snowden has been indicted as a “spy” and is considered to be one by many, even though the revelations from the leaked documents were not handed to another country, but publicly released to benefit the rights of the citizens of his own.

This is something that Donald Trump clearly took into consideration when he was “close” to pardoning Snowden near the end of his first stint in office. However, that eventually didn’t happen, but now, a number of figures likely to hold top positions in the new US administration think the time has come.

Among them is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who Trump wants as his Health and Human Services secretary. Another is Donald Trump Jr., who is also in favor of pardoning several other whistleblowers, and a candidate for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has long espoused a similar stance.

The man who originally helped Snowden publish his revelations, lawyer, and journalist Glenn Greenwald, thinks it makes perfect sense for Trump to this time go ahead and pardon Snowden, not least since some of the abuses the whistleblower exposed in 2013 have in the meantime affected the president as well.

“And if Trump’s goal is to bring transparency to those agencies there is no one who has done that more bravely and honestly than Snowden,” said Greenwald, who in 2013 worked with several major newspapers in the US and around the world to bring the Snowden files to the public.

Some of those newspapers – the Washington Post and the Guardian even won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.

Continue Reading

Trending

X