Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Use of J&J’s Hazardous Covid Vaccine Suspended in US

By Stephen Lendman | April 14, 2021

In response to potentially life threatening blood clots showing up in individuals jabbed with J & J’s experimental, hazardous covid vaccine, the CDC, FDA, and HHS recommended suspension of its use, a joint statement saying the following:

“As of April 12, more than 6.8 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine have been administered in the US.”

The “CDC and FDA are reviewing data involving six reported US cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot in individuals after receiving the J&J vaccine.”

“In these cases, a type of blood clot called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) was seen in combination with low levels of blood platelets (thrombocytopenia).”

“All six cases occurred among women between the ages of 18 and 48, and symptoms occurred 6 to 13 days after vaccination.”

Reported numbers of blood clots and other serious adverse events may be the tip of the iceberg.

Mass-jabbing for covid since last December with experimental, rushed to market drugs pose serious — potentially irreversible — harm to millions of unwitting people.

Suspending use of AstraZeneca’s covid vaccine earlier in Europe and J & J’s in the US isn’t good enough.

Use of these hazardous drugs should be permanently halted.

The same goes for Pfizer/Moderna’s mRNA covid drugs.

Growing numbers of individuals have already been harmed. Countless thousands died.

As long as these drugs continue to be used, adverse events and death will keep increasing exponentially.

Knowing the hazards these drugs pose, the FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMS) OK’d their use under “emergency” conditions that don’t exist.

On Wednesday, the CDC will convene an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting to further review serious blood clots from use of J & J’s covid vaccine.

It advised individuals experiencing severe headache, abdominal pain, leg pain, or shortness of breath within three weeks after being jabbed with the vaccine to seek medical care.

After the European Medicines Agency suspended use of AstraZeneca’s covid vaccine because of blood clots earlier, the agency once again OK’d its use —falsely claiming benefits outweigh the risks.

Since use of J & J’s covid drug began in late February, various sites in four US states halted use because of severe reactions.

An earlier article discussed what the Corporate Research Project called J & J’s disturbing “rap sheet.”

In August 2019, Cleveland County, Oklahoma District Court Judge Thad Balkman ruled for the state against Johnson & Johnson, saying:

J&J “caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome, in Oklahoma,” adding:

“(M)isleading marketing and promotion (of the company’s opioids) compromised the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans.”

“We have proven that Johnson & Johnson have built its billion dollar brand out of greed and on the backs of pain and suffering of innocent people” — despite warnings from its scientific advisors.

Oklahoma’s Attorney General Mike Hunter called J & J an “opioid kingpin.”

Lead state attorney Brad Beckworth said “(w)e’ve shown that J & J was at the root cause of this opioid crisis,” adding:

“It made billions of dollars from it over a 20-year period (yet) always denied responsibility” for selling hazardous to health drugs to unwitting consumers.

Court rulings against the firm forced it to pay billions of dollars in damages.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder earlier accused the company of “recklessly put(ting) at risk the health of some of the most vulnerable members of our society — including young children, the elderly and the disabled.”

Its hazardous covid vaccine is produced by its Janssen division.

Earlier, it produced the anthrax vaccine administered to around 150,000 US forces deployed to the Persian Gulf for the 1990-91 Gulf War — even though concerns were raised about adverse longterm health consequences.

Experimental anthrax vaccines contained squalene-based adjuvants that caused severe autoimmune diseases and deaths among Gulf War veterans years later.

Illnesses included rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, neuritis risking later paralysis, uveitis risking blindness, neurological harm, congenital disabilities in offspring, cognitive impairment, and systemic lupus erythematosus, among other health issues.

From 1990 to 2001, over two million doses of anthrax vaccine were administered to US military personnel.

Squalene adjuvants are a key ingredient in many vaccines.

J & J uses them in its covid vaccine.

There’s nothing remotely safe and effective about mass-jabbing with hazardous, experimental Pfizer/Moderna’s DNA altering mRNA technology or J & J/AstraZeneca’s covid vaccines.

Using them as directed risks serious near-or-longer-term harm to health and no protection from seasonal flu-now called covid.

April 14, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Danish drug regulator FAINTS at press conference announcing AstraZeneca vaccine halt

RT | April 14, 2021

Denmark will completely abandon the rollout of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine due to a risk of rare blood clots. One of the country’s top drug officials passed out at a press conference delivering the news.

As National Health Board Director Soeren Brostroem announced the decision, the Danish Medicines Agency’s acting director of pharmacovigilance, Tanja Erichsen, fainted and collapsed to the ground.

Erichsen’s fall sparked panic, as Brostroem and other officials rushed over to check on her. The medicines agency later announced that she had regained consciousness, but was taken to hospital for a checkup. No explanation was given for her fainting.

Denmark was the first country in the world to suspend the rollout of AstraZeneca’s Vaxzevria shot in March, though a number of other countries followed suit, among them France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Denmark, however, is the first country in the world to permanently ditch the British-Swedish developed jab.

“In the midst of an epidemic, it has been a difficult decision to continue our vaccination program without an effective and readily available vaccine against Covid-19,” Brostroem said at the press conference. “However, we have other vaccines at our disposal, and the epidemic is currently under control.”

The suspension is expected to push the country’s vaccination timeline back by “some weeks,” according to a report from Danish broadcaster TV2.

Denmark began vaccinations in December, and has to date approved four vaccines – from AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech. Only two shots, from Moderna and Pfizer, are currently available to Danes, after Johnson & Johnson delayed its own European rollout on Tuesday, due to several cases of blood clots being reported in the US.

April 14, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

FDA Says Stop the Johnson & Johnson Coronavirus Vaccine Shots

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | April 13, 2021

On Tuesday, the United States government’s Food and Drug Administration asked states to temporarily halt the giving of Johnson & Johnson’s experimental coronavirus vaccine shots, pointing to the developing of blood clots in people who have received the shots as the justification for halting.

For more information about the blood clots and other issues related to the Johnson & Johnson experimental vaccine, check out the Tuesday article “5 Reasons Johnson & Johnson Is Having A Very Bad Month” by Megan Redshaw at the Children’s Health Defense website.

One thing that is odd is that the Johnson & Johnson experimental vaccine shots have been subjected to this temporary halt, but shots of the experimental vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have not. Many reports of injury and death after Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech experimental vaccine shots, from the early days onward, have come in as well. Could the different regulatory outcomes be because the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech shots use mRNA technology and are not even vaccines under the normal meaning of the term while the Johnson & Johnson shot is more in line with the traditional vaccines approach? Are we seeing regulatory favoritism for the new mRNA shots?


Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute

April 13, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | | Leave a comment

Argentine Government to Launch Legal Action Against Ex-President Over IMF Loan

Sputnik – 10.04.2021

Argentina’s President Alberto Fernandez issued a decree instructing the country’s special legal body to act as a plaintiff on behalf of the state in a case against his predecessor Mauricio Macri, stemmed from his decision to take a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the amount of $50 billion.

“Prosecutors representing the state as the claimant are ordered to pursue the case, ‘Mauricio Macri and others, fraud against state bodies’ … and to facilitate the advancement of the criminal process in order to determine those responsible for the crime,” the decree says.

The document further states that the case is related to Marci’s decision to take a loan from the IMF in the amount of $50 billion in 2018. The current government has repeatedly spoken about the difficulties surrounding paying off the debt and began negotiations with the IMF on a new assistance program.

In addition, lawyers were instructed to initiate actions leading to compensation for possible losses incurred as a result of the actions of the previous authorities.

The decree was signed by the country’s current president, prime minister, and ministers of economy and justice.

April 10, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Iran will in no way enter negotiations beyond JCPOA: Security chief

Press TV – April 6, 2021

Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Shamkhani says the Islamic Republic will under no circumstances enter negotiations beyond the nuclear agreement it clinched with six major world states in 2015.

“Regardless of whether Europe has the will or ability to persuade #USA to lift all sanctions at once & Washington’s return to its commitments, there will be no possibility for Iran entering the talks in the new fields, more than JCPOA, under any circumstances,” he said.

The security chief posted the tweet with the hashtag #activeresistance in his tweet.

Shamkhani’s tweet followed remarks by the US administration’s special envoy for Iran, Rob Malley, who is based in a hotel near the venue of talks in the Austrian capital of Vienna between representatives of Iran and the remaining signatories to the JCPOA.

In an interview with the American National Public Radio, Malley was asked about a “follow-up” agreement in case the JCPOA gets back on track.

“What we would pursue is, first of all, a longer agreement. Even though this one lasts quite some time and some of its provisions last forever, of course, it would be better, as in any arms control agreement, to see whether we could get a follow-on deal that extends the timelines,” he replied.

Earlier in the day, representatives of Iran and the P4+1 group of countries — Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — began a new round of talks in Vienna over a possible return of the United States to the JCPOA, which abandoned by the US under former president Donald Trump some three years ago.

The Vienna negotiations took place within the “in-person” and expert-level formats.

Ahead of the talks, Iran’s Foreign Ministry reaffirmed in a statement that no representatives from the US are to attend the nuclear talks in Vienna, and that the Iranian delegation’s agenda does not feature any direct or indirect negotiations with Americans either.

April 6, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 3 Comments

Mexico President Says ‘Pass’ on Coronavirus Vaccine

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | April 6, 2021

Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has distinguished himself among top national political leaders across the world by not freaking out over coronavirus. Instead, López Obrador has gone his own way with actions including choosing to usually not wear a mask and criticizing other nations’ political leaders for “acting like dictators” in their imposing of coronavirus-related mandates.

Now comes news of López Obrador again going directly against the worldwide coronavirus political tide. He decided not to take one of the experimental coronavirus vaccines.

Many government leaders across the world have, in contrast, made a big show of their publicly taking experimental coronavirus vaccine shots.

While United States President Joe Biden is out spreading blatantly fraudulent propaganda that experimental coronavirus vaccines are safe and everyone should take them, south of the border President López Obrador is pretty much saying “I’ll pass.”

As reported Monday by the Associated Press, López Obrador, who had refused to take a shot earlier because he did not want to become a “spectacle,” chose again not to take a shot when, based on his age and where he lives, his turn recently came up. Why? López Obrador explains that doctors advised him he already has sufficient antibodies due to having been infected with coronavirus in January.

Instead of allowing himself to be corralled like livestock into a mass vaccination pen, López Obrador did what people have long done as a matter of course, he obtained medical advice focused on his own unique circumstances and then made up his own mind about his healthcare. His conclusion: Taking shots is not the right course of action for him.

How normal. How not “new normal.” What a breath of fresh air.


Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute

April 6, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 2 Comments

Why is the Biden Regime Pushing Ukraine to Attack Russia?

By Ron Paul | April 5, 2021

On March 24th, Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky signed what was essentially a declaration of war on Russia. In the document, titled Presidential Decree No. 117/2021, the US-backed Ukrainian leader declared that it is the official policy of Ukraine to take back Crimea from Russia.

The declaration that Ukraine would take back Crimea from Russia also followed, and was perhaps instigated by, President Biden’s inflammatory and foolish statement that “Crimea is Ukraine.”

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was a chief architect of the US-backed coup against Ukraine in 2014, continued egging on the Ukrainians, promising full US support for the “territorial integrity” of Ukraine. Many Americans wonder why they are not even half as concerned about the territorial integrity of the United States!

Not to be outdone, at the beginning of this month US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin – who previously served on the board of missile-maker Raytheon – called his counterpart in Ukraine and promised “unwavering US support for Ukraine’s sovereignty.” As the US considers Crimea to be Ukrainian territory, this is clearly a clear green light for Kiev to take military action.

Washington is also sending in weapons. Some 300 tons of new weapons have arrived in the past weeks and more is on the way.

As could be expected, Moscow has responded to Zelensky’s decree and to the increasingly bellicose rhetoric in Kiev and Washington by re-positioning troops and other military assets closer to its border with Ukraine. Does anyone doubt that if the US were in the same situation – for example, if China installed a hostile and aggressive government in Mexico – the Pentagon might move troops in a similar manner?

But according to the media branch of the US military-industrial-Congressional-media complex, Russian troop movements are not a response to clear threats from a neighbor, but instead are just more “Russian aggression.”

The unhinged US “experts” behind the 2014 coup against the elected Ukrainian president are back in power and they are determined to finish the job – even if it means World War III! The explicit US backing of Ukraine’s military ambitions in the region are a blank check to Kiev.

But it is a check that Kiev would be wise to avoid cashing. Back in 1956 the US government pumped endless propaganda into Hungary promising military backing for an uprising against its Soviet occupiers. When the Hungarians, believing Washington’s lies, did rise up they found themselves all alone and facing Soviet retaliation.

Despite the cruel US propaganda, at least Eisenhower was wise enough to realize that no one would benefit from a nuclear war over Budapest.

Why is it any of our business whether Crimea is part of Ukraine or part of Russia? Why is it any of our business if the Russian-speaking population of eastern Ukraine prefer being aligned with Russia?

Why, for that matter, are unproven allegations of Russian meddling in our elections a violation of the “rules-based international order” but an actual US-backed coup against an elected Ukrainian government is not?

We are seeing foreign policy made by Raytheon and the other US military contractors, through cut-outs in government like Austin and others. Feckless US foreign policy “experts” believe their own propaganda about Russia and are on the verge of taking us to war over it.

It seems as if Americans are sleepwalking through this dangerous minefield. Let us hope they soon wake up before we’re all blown up.

Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute.

April 5, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 1 Comment

Should Guaidó be Arrested?

By Alberto Aranguibel | Venezuelanalysis | March 30, 2021

The clamor for [Juan] Guaidó’s arrest is becoming increasingly uncontainable: he has caused so much damage and suffering to the country with the criminal economic assault carried out by his fictitious government.

Venezuelans are correctly demanding that the law be applied to him to the fullest extent. They also compare his case to the large number of daily imprisonments, from petty criminals to important bosses of state-run companies involved in acts of corruption.

People demand an end to what is perceived as an unjustifiable example of impunity, with Guaidó’s continuing liberty perceived to be the result of government indifference or irresponsibility. It would not require more than a quick look at the people’s suffering as a result of the criminal blockade and economic attacks which he has promoted, as well as at his and his team’s looting of the nation’s assets abroad, to find enough evidence.

But this alleged indifference doesn’t exist.

As it turns out, politics today is little more than the artful and efficient management of communications despite the persistence of traditional political theses. That is why one can see a growing number of communicators and less traditional leaders taking to politics across the globe, using their ability to influence the masses with their discourse, ideas, and charisma.

Guaidó is simply an unsubstantial media product that did not need any particular trajectory, capacity, or talent for ideological debate, nor any attempt to build a popular struggle or an important social movement to take on the highest levels of the political establishment. What he did have was a complex network of national and international rightwing sectors, and he was backed by the most intense communications campaign carried out to fabricate a false leader.

Imprisoning him right now would mean participating in the construction of the media product, even increasing Guaidó’s scope by virtue of the headlines generated by such a move. It would also allow him to position himself as the victim of an oppressive and ruthless regime, an idea which the media laboratories of the most reactionary anti-Venezuela sectors have been pushing for some time.

This media manipulation is obviously an element that the architects of the assault on Venezuelan democracy need in order to complement their macabre plan.

To avoid making this mistake – which may cost the country not only its democracy but also the freedom and independence that people have built through so much hard work and sacrifice – the government must wait until Guaidó’s media profile starts to weaken (as is already happening). By waiting, any headlines generated by his arrest will be, at best, about a normal and ordinary application of justice.

This is as it must be, and, sooner rather than later, as it will probably end up being.

Alberto Aranguibel is a Venezuelan political analyst, blogger, and former member of the National Constituent Assembly (2017-2020). He is also a journalist who runs “Sin Tapujos,” a program on the state-run TV channel Venezolana de Televisión.

Translation by Paul Dobson for Venezuelanalysis.

Source: Soy Aranguibel

April 1, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | | 1 Comment

Blinken’s Pièce de Théâtre Failed; Its Script Was Passé

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 26, 2021

Global Times editorial assessed that the China-U.S. Anchorage talks would come to be seen as “a landmark in history”. For the first time, U.S. hegemony was treated disdainfully; for the first time, the U.S. ‘right’ to claim its values – its ‘style’ of democracy – as universally applicable, was publicly and flatly contradicted. Even the posture of ‘speaking from strength’ was dismissed, and the U.S.’ pressure of an alliance ‘bloc’ system ‘despised’. All spoken with an air of impunity (you need us, more than we need you). Strong stuff; no wonder Blinken looked shell-shocked.

Yet, this was not ‘it’. Anchorage was, in practice, a play of several acts. Well before ‘Opening Night’, a supportive cast was being mobilised as chorus to the play’s anticipated moment of climax: The Quad (U.S., Japan, Australia, and India) were warmed up; NATO activated, and the Europeans co-opted.

Even before the audience could take their seats, a small early drama was enacted in Moscow. It set in place the scenery to the climactic Act that was expected at Anchorage. The EU High Representative who had travelled purposively to read the ‘Riot Act’ to Moscow for its treatment of demonstrators, and of Alexei Navalny himself, was completely nonplussed to find the tables entirely turned – it was the EU that was led to the Moscow dock, chastised for criminalising Catalonian leaders as seditionists, and presented with videos of European police heavy-handedness in dealing with demonstrators. The first crack to the mould appeared.

FM Lavrov later made it unmistakably clear that Moscow was more than a little browned-off with Europe. The EU, he said, had “destroyed” Russia’s ability to have relations with Brussels: “There are no relations with the EU as an organization. The entire infrastructure of these relations has been destroyed by unilateral decisions made from Brussels”.

As the day approached for the main theatrical ‘piece’, even before the curtain rose, one actor (playing Uncle Sam), strolled the forestage to ‘warm up’ the audience with a recitation of the villainy perpetuated by the anti-hero (China). That was the mood-setter – the crux to the pièce de théâtre. A rolled document was in his hand, but not shown to the audience. It was just possible to glimpse its title: The Longer Telegram.

Aahh! The audience took the hint; it made the connection – The Longer Telegram was a ‘play’ on an earlier 1946 work by George Kanaan, excoriating the USSR, and warning that Russia must never be allowed to side with China. The Longer Telegram however, identified China as chief villain, and assailed President Xi and the CCP precisely as fault-lines who should be reviled, and if possible, wedged and broken apart. Though the conclusion to both Telegrams at least remained unchanged: Russia and China must never be allowed to join forces with each other.

What made this work so tantalising was that no one knew who wrote it – his/her identity was concealed by the Atlantic Council. “The author of this work has requested to remain anonymous, and the Atlantic Council has honoured this for reasons we consider legitimate but that will remain confidential. The Council has not taken such a measure before, but it made the decision to do so given the extraordinary significance of the author’s insights and recommendations as the United States confronts the signature geopolitical challenge of the era” [i.e. China – does the phrasing sound familiar?].

Almost certainly, it was thought, a member of the Biden Administration was the author. But might it have been Blinken himself? No one knows, but The Longer Telegram was read in Beijing too.

So, as the night arrived, and the curtain started to rise, the actor-narrator prepared the seated audience for the key dénouement saying that the anticipated clash with the anti-hero Yang, would be a “once-off” climactic duel, rather than the ‘start of something’, adding that the prospective duel also would be opportunity for an “airing of grievances” about China’s terrible behaviour.

But, when it came to the main scene, it all went wrong. Blinken, having duly read out the prepared ‘grievances’ indictment, found that the anti-hero, Yang Jiechi, instead of being chastened and reproved, hit back. (He had read the Theatre promo, and was prepared). It was a disaster. The End of Act. The mould was broken. An editor at the U.S. Spectator surmises: “The United States, said Yang, in one of the most dismissive diplomatic rejoinders I have ever heard, does not have the ‘qualifications’ to address China ‘from a position of strength’. F, my dear Blinken, you”.

Then we come to a further scene, where the play’s two anti-heroes turn out not to be ‘anti-heroes’, but brothers-in-arms. It turns out that the Russian anti-hero’s patron had been earlier impugned as a soulless ‘killer’. Lavrov and Li seal a pact in Beijing after the talks. And China warns any regional actor who sides with Uncle Sam – against either of the brothers-in-arms – ‘would not succeed in standing alone’ against either brother, but to face them jointly would be unimaginable. “Anyone putting their faith in the U.S. would be disappointed. The U.S. is weakening”.

The mould is in pieces – and Russia and China have come together.

Last Act opens (a thunderstorm is heard in the background): The ‘Bloc’ strikes: The U.S., Canada, the UK and EU act in a co-ordinated strike on the ‘brothers’, for infringing Muslin human rights in Xinjiang Province (a fiercely contested claim). Within minutes of the EU sanctions being imposed on party officials in Xinjiang, Beijing retaliates with sanctions on European parliamentarians, the EU Council political and security committee, scholars and the human rights sub-committee. (It is the EU’s turn to be shell-shocked now).

Dismissing the EU’s move “as based on nothing but lies and disinformation”, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said, “the Chinese side urges the EU side to reflect on itself, face squarely the severity of its mistake and redress it. It must stop lecturing others on human rights and interfering in their internal affairs. It must end the hypocritical practice of double standards and stop going further down the wrong path. Otherwise, China will resolutely make further reactions”. Ouch … another convention lies shattered.

The U.S. and EU are unused to being treated with disdain; and their sanctions ignored and brushed aside, with a curt ‘China doesn’t care for your pressures’. Even more perplexing to the EU’s unremittingly mercantilist mindset, China is evidently reconciled to losing the January Investment Pact (CAI) signed with the EU, but not ratified by parliament, and now almost certainly lost to both parties. And Moscow too, seems not to care that Nordstream 2 might also be at greater risk now. EU leaders will be disturbed that its’ ‘400 million market’ may not be the ‘ace’ which it imagined it to be.

The EU faces a dilemma: It had been crying out for a return to so-called ‘multilateralism.’ It got it – the Bloc sanctioning of Xinjiang officials, Putin impugned, and Russia sanctioned, and paradoxically, the EU is now sanctioned itself – its foreign relations with the great powers of Eurasia lie mired in the mud. It faces economic losses in respect to the China Investment Pact, and in trade with Russia.

The scene then changes one final time: It has Brussels’ NATO HQ as its backdrop now. The actor-narrator steps again onto the theatre forestage to say that whilst a collective response to China’s coercive behaviour “which threatens our collective security and prosperity” was indeed the thrust of our script, the latter “doesn’t mean countries can’t work with China, where possible. The United States will. We can’t afford not to … The United States won’t force our allies into an ‘us-or-them’ choice with China”.

The Bloc cannot hold – the crystal snapped, emitting a sharp crack. The theatre play was all about re-legitimising (a ritual, one-off re-enactment) of the American myth of its innate moral quality for holding leadership of the world, and its right to mobilise allies against those (here the tone is of a man – Blinken – shocked at what he is about to say) that don’t share our values: “They actually try and undermine the international rules-based order”.

The curtain is down. The script didn’t gel. The play is critiqued and it revealed paradoxically, that the ‘the myth’ that it precisely intended to re-validate, in a post-Trump, ritual exorcism, is indeed date-expired – it is passé. It is a very different world, four years on.

March 27, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | 1 Comment

Craig Murray Found Guilty of Contempt of Court for ‘Jigsaw Identification’, Sentencing to Follow

By Mohamed Elmaazi – Sputnik – 25.03.2021

The former British diplomat argued that the contempt of court charges against him undermine the right to free speech, are unduly broad in their scope, and are a form of politically motivated retaliation, following his outspoken criticism of the prosecution of former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond.

The High Court in Edinburgh has confirmed the conviction of former British diplomat-turned-whistleblower Craig Murray on one of the contempt of court charges filed against him by the Crown. The charge related to Murray’s alleged “jigsaw” identification of the identities of protected witnesses in the trial of former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. 

“The court has concluded that, having regard to the context in which the articles appeared, including the terms of the article of 18th January and the tweet referring thereto on the 19th of January, that the articles of 11th, 18th, 19th March, 3rd April and the tweet of 2nd April, must be considered to constitute contempt of court relating to material capable of identifying four different complainers. We therefore make a finding of contempt of court. The reasons will be issued in full, in due course. Those reasons have been shared in draft with Mr Scott and the Advocate Depute”, Lady Leeona J Dorrian said.

The hearing only lasted a few minutes and adjourned until 7 May, 10AM, so that the parties may file their respective submissions in relation to sentencing. Murray faces up to two years in prison and an unlimited fine.

John Scott QC, speaking for Murray, prepared the court for the kind of evidence that would be submitted in mitigation, for the purposes of what’s known as a Criminal Justice Social Work Report.

“[A]s a precautionary measure, despite not having seen, of course, the opinion of the court or being aware of the court’s conclusions, the Respondent [Murray] took down his blog page yesterday”, he told Lady Dorrian.

Scott noted that, “there has been a change in the Respondent’s family circumstances recently, in that his partner gave birth on the 18th of February to his son, Oscar”, adding that Murray, “is also keen to communicate his anxiety and stress over these proceedings, especially the uncertainty of outcome, and also the possibility of very serious penalty, which clearly still exists.”

Murray’s contempt of court trial was heard by a three judge panel at the High Court, but it was led by Lady Leeona J Dorrian, the second most senior Scottish judge who also presided over Salmond’s trial. Salmond faced a raft of sex assault allegations but was acquitted by a jury of all of the charges against him, and there is extensive evidence that his prosecution was in fact politically motivated, a position which Murray himself has taken.

All of the charges against Murray related to his writings via his own blog and social media (as well as replies and comments made by others to those posts) before and during Salmond’s trial. It was Murray’s reporting in connection to the Salmond case.

Murray was charged with three offences:

  • Publication of material that creates a “substantial risk” of prejudicing the jury in violation of the Contempt of Court Act 1981;
  • Reporting on the exclusion of two jurors in violation of a court order “preventing publication of the details of the issues raised by the Advocate Depute on 23 March 2020” as they related to the jurors’ removal; and
  • “Jigsaw identification” of alleged victims who testified against Salmond.

The allegation of jigsaw identification argued that Murray’s articles, individually or in conjunction with other articles and material that can be obtained via Google and social media, could indirectly result in a member of the public determining the identity of alleged victims in the Salmond case.

The Government argued in favour of a wide interpretation of jigsaw identification, meaning that a journalist might violate the law if a person with intimate knowledge of the case could piece together the identity of a protected witness. Murray’s lawyers argued that such an interpretation would be unfair and would violate the Article 10 rights of journalists and the public. Consideration should also be given that in complex cases, it “might [also] be possible for good faith errors to be made there”, Scott told the court during the trial. He added that if the court decides on a wider interpretation, court orders protecting the identity of participants in court cases would need to be written with greater specificity.

The court did not make a guilty finding with respect to the charges alleging prejudicing the jury and violating the court order on reporting on juror removal.

The Crown argued that two articles published by Murray, ten and six months before Alex Salmond’s trial even began, created a “substantial risk” of prejudicing the jury. The defence, for its part, noted that the prosecution could have brought the articles to the attention of the presiding judge in order to get her to issue an order that they be taken down, a position which the Advocate Depute admitted his office had considered and ultimately rejected. Murray was not found guilty on this charge.

The government also suggested that Murray was responsible for “improper moderation” of comments made underneath those two articles on his website. A position that was objected to by the defence as creating too much of a burden and legal obligation on their client for remarks made by others. There was no reference to this argument in Lady Dorrian’s brief statement, and as such, it appears that this charge was rejected.

During Murray’s trial, the prosecution accepted that the former diplomat did not actually violate the express wording of the court order regarding the exclusion of two jurors, because Murray merely offered his own theory as to why the jurors were excluded. But they nonetheless argued that his post on the matter violated the spirit of the order – an interpretation that the defence argued was too broad. This charge was also, ultimately, unsuccessful.

Murray temporarily suspended his blog on 24 March, in the expectation that he would be found guilty on at least one of the charges due to a hearing being scheduled for the judgment, rather than the verdict simply being handed down in written form. The notice on his website read:

“In view of our understanding that the High Court has found some articles on this blog to be in contempt of court, and in view of the fact that the Crown Office had sought to censor such a large range of articles, this blog has no choice but to go dark from 15.00 today until some time after tomorrow’s court hearing, when it will be specified to us precisely how much of the truth we have to expunge before we can bring the blog back up”.

“This is a dark day for the entire team here. We will be looking to appeal this to the Supreme Court and if required (though we very much doubt it will be) to the European Court of Human Rights”.

March 25, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | 1 Comment

Digital Green Certificates Must Be Immediately Rejected

Tracey O’Mahoney

Wake TF UP | March 24, 2021

In Ireland, on the 25th of March 2021, a vote on the examination procedure for the Digital Green Certificate Regulation will take place. It aims to allow the newly jabbed persons of Europe to travel freely within the E.U, while limiting the movement of those who are unvaccinated.

Highly respected Irish barrister Tracey O’Mahoney has conducted an analysis of the proposal to reveal extremely worrying possibilities (or impossibilities) that lay in wait for those who will say no to the jab. In her YouTube presentation, she implores her audience to contact the Members of the European Parliament to demand that they refrain from giving the nod to this Orwellian law. I implore you to do the same.

A vote for this ugly apartheid system, which is currently in place in Israel and is proven to have already created a wave of discrimination and bias, is a vote for the Davos cult and a blow to the sovereignty of Irish people and of individualism. It is a vote against liberal democracy and a further step towards tyranny and oppression. 

This is being addressed presently in Israel, with a law firm taking it towards the International Criminal Court, citing violations of the Nuremberg Code.

It is paramount that all Members of the European Parliament and all politicians in this country and all across Europe are reminded that a piece of paper does not trump the personal autonomy and the inalienable rights of the human being. No certificate anywhere in the world can deny these inherent rights and any attempt to do so is, by its very nature, anti-human. 

Whereas the legislation text aims to take the focus off the real issue, which is the restriction of movement, it is obvious that the passing of this law will result in the greatest threat to liberty in the nation since the days of the colonial occupation. For this reason, it is a blatant and severe abuse of civil rights and an act of war on those who are unwilling or unable to be vaccinated. The idea that this same regulation should be fast-tracked, with little or no discussion, makes it even more egregious and is completely unacceptable. Any politician who votes for this will be historically remembered as one who voted for a law that is only comparable, in the restrictions it places on the select citizens, to the Nuremberg Laws of the 1930s. 

There is no excuse for the passing of this law as it is not in any way proven to be for the benefit or the good health of society – as it is known and acknowledged, even by the WHO and Big Pharma, that the COVID-19 vaccinations do not, under any circumstances, prevent the transmission of the SARS-COV-2 virus. For this reason, it is merely designed as a law to further restrict the freedom of movement of the individual and thus increases the power of a government that is already, in its behaviour and actions, tyrannical and authoritarian. It is a blatant attempt at oppression and vilification of the unvaccinated. It is a Fascistic and human-rights destroying aberration and serves to benefit nobody besides those who gain financially from human capital. 

In a time when government agents in Ireland are threatening church leaders with fines and imprisonment and academics are being pressured and bullied out of their positions in universities due to holding alternative opinions, adding coercion and medical experimentation to the already long list of human rights abuses is not going to be tolerated by those people in this country who value their freedom. 

Allowing those who have made the decision to be vaccinated with an injection that is still in phase three trials to partake in activities such as travel, while prohibiting those who have not, is an intentional attempt at creating a divided society and is deeply malevolent. To use this method against the very people of the nation who pay the salaries of those in power, coercing them to be vaccinated with a product that has already damaged and disabled thousands of individuals, is mendacious and reprehensible. To restrict the movement of those who have not bowed down to pharmaceutical companies, all with track records of dishonestyphysical injury and death, is dishonourable and indicates an absence of integrity, to say the least. 

To even consider implementing such a pointless exercise of oppression on the Irish people in a week, when the Central Statistics Office have revealed that in the first 9 months of 2020, there was a decrease in the number of deaths in Ireland compared with the previous seven years, begs the questions, what is the true purpose of this debacle and what is the agenda? Many of us have surmised, including me, as I have covered in my book, The COVID-19 Illusion; A Cacophony of Lies.

How long will it be before it is impermissible to shop at your local store without a vaccination certificate? How long until the unvaccinated are prohibited from entering restaurants and bars? How long before the so-called refuseniks are cast out of society and considered unworthy of entering sports arenas, concert venues and theatres. How long before your social services are discontinued because you are not vaccinated? How long before the jab is required in order for you to gain employment? How long before unvaccinated students are refused admission to university?

Not long at all if we let the unelected dictators impose their will on the masses, with the silence of compromised political representatives becoming deafening. The tiptoe towards totalitarianism has become a sprint. The avenue to apartheid is lined with wreaths as the slow suffocation of freedom leaves us limp like lifeless corpses, existing only to acquiesce to the demands of Davos.

These attempts of force by the European institutions and the Irish government are unacceptable. It is in the best interest of the nation that the Digital Green Certificates be avoided, along with any other tool that can be used to stifle liberties. It is highly recommended that this legislation is not passed. It is not conducive to a free and democratic society and should not be even considered.

The proposed New Normal, if this is what it is indicative of, should be rejected and discarded immediately. 

March 24, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | Leave a comment

A film censor’s role is to police art, NOT to tell parents and children what they should think on trans issues

By Frank Furedi | RT | March 24, 2021

The British Board of Film Classification has stepped into the trans debate by highlighting five films for families to watch and discuss. But it’s not the job of an official censor to promote films that advocate certain ideologies.

Who would have imagined that, one day, that dreaded puritanical institution, the official censor, would assume the role of an educator? 

Recently, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), the body tasked with censoring and classifying the films released in the UK, announced that it has decided to get involved in educating parents on how to deal with one of the most controversial issues they face.

It has compiled a list of five movies that “explore transgender experiences” which it believes are fit for family discussions. It hopes that as a result of this initiative, it can prompt discussion on this sensitive topic between parents and their children. Although on its website the BBFC presents the initiative as an educational one, its real aim, however, is not so much to educate as to advocate.

In this instance, the objective is to get families to educate themselves about “trans rights and trans people’s journeys”. It uses the term “educate” in the sense that advocacy campaigners use it, which means encouraging families to accept and embrace the gender ideology promoted by the trans activists also involved in this initiative.

The BBFC’s partner All About Trans, a project backed by charity On Road Media, aims to “change how the media understands and portrays transgender people”. It clearly also wants to influence parents and children so their outlook falls into line with its views.

In principle, there is nothing objectionable about groups of private individuals organising and launching an advocacy campaign. In a free and democratic society, advocating for different points of view is an important feature of public life.

But matters are very different when supposedly neutral official institutions take it on themselves to serve as conduits for the agenda and ideology of campaigning groups. There is a problem when the official authority of the BBFC is used to promote the views of one section of the community, particularly on a sensitive and contentious subject such as trans culture.

It is generally accepted that, as far as education is concerned, institutions that are meant to impartially serve the public affirm and promote the values of their community. Yet, in this instance, the BBFC sees its role not as one of affirming long-standing cultural values, but of attempting to socialise parents and children to embrace an outlook not yet integral to their community’s life. Historically, this type of re-education has been referred to as social engineering. In any case, it is worth asking who has decided the institution of censorship should serve as a family educator.

The BBFC is a statutory body for classifying films and video content. It has clearly gone beyond its brief, and even more disturbingly, it has brazenly breached its impartiality. At the moment, there is a fierce debate about how to address the question of gender identity in schools. This discussion, which involves teachers, parents, government officials and trans activists, is far from over. Through its intervention, what the BBFC has done is to imply that the debate has concluded, and that people should be educated in accordance with its version of the issues at stake.

In effect, the BBFC has adopted a mode of operation that can best be described as positive censorship. Unlike normal negative censorship, which suppresses heresy and subversion, positive censorship closes down debate through educating people to embrace values they do not hold. 

When the BBFC and groups advocating the cultural politics of identity demand people ‘educate themselves’, they don’t mean visit a library to read a book or go to a cinema and watch one of the films on its list. What they mean is to learn to accept their ideology of gender.

There was a time when censors were censors. They were in the business of policing literature and art, suppressing speech and other forms of communication. They justified their censorious behaviour on the ground that a particular text was blasphemous, heretical, subversive or obscene. Sadly, the BBFC has decided it is not simply in the business of suppressing what it believes are heretical thoughts, but also that it should dictate the kinds of films that will enlighten parents and their children.

Old-school censors were bad enough, but the BBFC’s ‘enlightened’ positive censorship is far worse, as it presumes to alter the way we think.

March 24, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | Leave a comment