CANADA THREATENS LIFE SENTENCES FOR “HATRED”
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | March 7, 2024
Canada’s proposed bill, C-63, lays out liberty-crushing, due process annihilating terms for ill-defined thought crimes such as ‘fear of hate propaganda.’ Meanwhile, Ireland has a similar bill as the public is seeing a hidden hand crafting legislation aimed to disrupt society.
New Law Would Make COVID Vaccine Makers Liable for Injuries, Deaths
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 6, 2024
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would allow Americans to sue the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines for vaccine-related adverse events, including deaths by removing the vaccine makers’ liability shield.
The Let Injured Americans Be Legally Empowered Act, or the LIABLE Act, would “allow Americans who took vaccines that were misleadingly promoted and forced onto many Americans via federal mandates to pursue civil litigation for their injuries,” according to a summary of the bill publicized by Fox News.
“These vaccines were given emergency use authorization unilaterally and did not go through the normal FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] approval process,” the summary stated.
Commenting on the proposed legislation, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland said:
“The damages and fatalities caused by the COVID-19 vaccine demand accountability. This legislation represents a critical milestone in rectifying these injustices and paving the way for a more accountable future. This legislation is crucial for holding vaccine manufacturers accountable.”
CHD is among the organizations supporting the legislation.
According to Roy’s office, “COVID-19 vaccines are considered ‘countermeasures’ under the Public Readiness and Preparedness (PREP) Act, which broadly shields their manufacturers from civil liability related to losses stemming from the vaccines.”
“Instead, injured Americans must seek relief under the onerous Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) — but only 11 COVID-19-related claims have been paid out of CICP.”
Holland said the CICP is “wholly inadequate and inconsistent with constitutional principles in providing just redress.”
The proposed legislation would remove all federal liability protections for the COVID-19 vaccine, preserve the ability of injured Americans to access pre-existing compensation programs, such as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), and would be retroactive, allowing Americans vaccinated and injured before the bill’s passage to sue.
In a statement, Roy said, “The long train of abuses committed by the government and public health establishment in response to COVID-19 will continue to impact the American people for years to come.”
As a result, Roy said he is “introducing the LIABLE Act to empower Americans to remove crony federal liability protections for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and empower injured Americans. The American people deserve justice for the infringement on their personal medical freedom and those medically harmed deserve restitution.”
React19, a nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of vaccine injury victims, also welcomed the proposed legislation. Dr. Joel Wallskog, a Wisconsin orthopedic surgeon who no longer practices due to injuries he sustained from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, is co-chair of the organization. He told The Defender:
“React19 supports the LIABLE Act. The COVID-19 public health emergency ended in 2023. Despite this, pharmaceutical companies, the government, and health care organizations are still protected from all liability through the PREP Act until at least Dec. 31, 2024.
“This blanket immunity provided by the PREP Act robs the American public injured by the COVID-19 shots of their right to due process and jury trial. We are relegated to CICP, which is an obvious failure.”
‘Hindsight will show this was absolutely necessary’
According to Fox News, the PREP Act “limits liability for the manufacturing, development and distribution of medical countermeasures related to a public health emergency.” COVID-19 vaccines were distributed in the U.S. on this basis.
In turn, the PREP Act created CICP, “which has a one-year statute of limitations and only provides compensation in the event of death or serious injury,” Fox News reported. As a result, COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers “are mostly immune from civil lawsuits, even if those seeking money damages have medical proof of their vaccine-related injuries.”
“Millions of Americans were forced to take a COVID-19 shot out of fear of losing their livelihoods and under false pretenses,” Roy told Fox News on Tuesday, contrasting the 11 claims compensated by CICP with the 700 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines which have been administered in the U.S.
Wallskog said CICP “has a 98% denial rate” and, as of Jan. 1, has issued a total “of about $41,000” for the 11 claims it has compensated — an average of approximately $3,700 per claim.
Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for CHD, is an expert on the PREP Act and CICP. He told The Defender he “would be thrilled” to see PREP Act manufacturer protection removed. “Someday, hindsight will show this was absolutely necessary,” Flores said.
Flores noted that U.S. government guarantees made to vaccine manufacturers early during the pandemic prohibited the government from “using or authorizing COVID-19 vaccine” unless they were “protected from liability under a declaration issued under the PREP Act, or a successor COVID-19 PREP Act declaration of equal or greater scope.”
“If this bill proceeds, this will be the battleground,” Flores said.
Lawsuits will help determine if COVID vaccines were as ‘safe and effective’ as claimed
Big Pharma did not welcome the proposed legislation. In a statement shared with Fox News, Andrew Powaleny, senior director of public affairs for PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America], an industry trade group, said:
“COVID-19 has been a reminder of why we need safe and effective vaccines. All vaccines, including those for COVID-19, are subject to a rigorous safety and efficacy review process and post-market monitoring.
“By upending the existing liability framework manufacturers rely upon to provide predictable vaccine development, our ability to address future public health threats will be at risk.”
But other experts disagreed. Writing Tuesday in The Blaze, commentator and author Daniel Horowitz asked, “Should a product that is completely funded, marketed, monopolized, and then mandated by government be less liable than Toyota is for its airbags?”
Horowitz added, “Ideally, the NCVIA [the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986] and the PREP Act should be repealed entirely.”
Still, he welcomed Roy’s proposed legislation. “Giving consumers their day in court will be the perfect way to sort out whether Pfizer’s and Moderna’s products are as safe and effective as they claim,” he wrote.
“It’s highly likely that tens of millions of people are currently without recourse for compensation from a product that was fraudulently foisted upon the American people by these companies in collusion with the federal government,” Horowitz said. “Knowing that, Roy’s bill comes as welcome relief.”
According to Fox News, “Roy has led the charge against those vaccine mandates, including leading efforts to roll back COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the U.S. military.”
Co-sponsors of the bill include Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), Michael Cloud (R-Texas), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), Bob Good (R-Va.), Clay Higgins (R-La.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Barry Moore (R-Utah), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Randy Weber (R-Texas), Troy Nehls (R-Texas), Andy Harris (R-Md.), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho), Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).
“Americans injured by the COVID-19 shots deserve better,” Wallskog said. “They did what they thought was the right thing for themselves, their families and the nation. Now, they are left abandoned. This legislation gives them a chance at fair and just compensation.”
“The time has come for our nation to recognize these injuries and allow them legal recourse,” he added.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Pre-crime: Canada’s Justice Minister defends “Online Harms Bill” powers to place people under house arrest, cut internet access
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 5, 2024
Canada is facing stiff competition from many countries around the world, some of them labeled as “authoritarian,” in the race to institutionalize and normalize, and write into law, some distinctly dystopian concepts, like “pre-crime.”
And unfortunately for Canada’s democracy, its government seems to be doing very well in this aspect.
Justice Minister and Attorney General Arif Virani is currently defending a bizarre provision contained in the country’s “online harms” (C-63) bill that allows the authorities to place people under house arrest out of “fear” they could, at some point in the future, commit a “hate crime.”
Alternatively, citizens singled out in this way will be made to wear a tracking device – an electronic tag.
“Awful and unlawful” is how critics might describe the bill, which, judging by the minister’s comments, the government wants to rush through the parliament. However, Virani is trying to put a positive spin on it by suggesting it is some kind of democratic breakthrough that finds a balance that allows “awful but lawful” content to be kept online.
Meanwhile, what about the people who post it? Some of them will be kept at home or surveilled around the clock, which is the sum total of the provision. And Virani – who, in his role as attorney general, along with a judge, will be the one to decide who qualifies for this treatment – sees nothing wrong with any of it.
“(If) there’s a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them from doing certain things,” Virani said of the “suspected future suspects.”
In Canada, according to the Criminal Code, a peace bond is issued “when a person appears likely to commit a criminal offense, but there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has actually been committed.”
Virani explained that such a peace bond could impose restrictions on people approaching “a synagogue or a mosque” (presumably, also a church). Or, their use of the internet, but also somehow behavior could get “restricted,” he continued.
“That would help to deradicalize people who are learning things online and acting out in the real world violently, sometimes fatally,” said the official.
C-63 also seeks to introduce the life sentence for those who commit “a hate crime offense” along with another type of crime.
Such is the messaging and the climate created by this type of legislation that the Canadian press finds it necessary to reassure people while reporting about C-63’s life imprisonment provision, that it will not apply in cases of “mischief to a garage door.”
But if it did – one might be amazed, but at this point in time, hardly surprised.
CHD Urges Vermont Lawmakers to Reject Bill That Would Allow Kids 12 and Under to Consent to HPV Vaccines
By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | March 5, 2024
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) last week submitted written testimony to the Vermont Senate Health and Welfare Committee opposing a proposed bill that would allow children as young as 12 to receive certain vaccines — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — without parental knowledge or consent.
Senate Bill S.151 states on page 1 that it “proposes to allow a minor 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care for the prevention of a sexually transmitted infection.” The bill does not specifically mention vaccines.
However, according to CHD’s New England Chapter, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Planned Parenthood and other groups that want to offer confidential preventative services to minors — including HPV vaccines, hepatitis vaccines, HIV PrEP pills and other products — are lobbying for the bill.
In their testimony, CHD President Mary Holland and General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg argued that HPV vaccines have never been proven to prevent cancer, that the vaccines have caused significant injuries and that bypassing parental consent violates federal law.
They also questioned whether minors could reasonably be expected to understand the potential long-term health risks of these vaccines.
In their testimony, Holland and Rosenberg, authors of “The HPV Vaccine On Trial: Seeking Justice For A Generation Betrayed,” wrote:
“Teens … understandably may not want to have children immediately but do they want to risk not having any children in the future? If they do not know the real risks and the minimal (if any) potential benefits of HPV vaccines, can they give informed consent?”
CHD urged the Vermont Senate Health and Welfare Committee to withdraw S.151. CHD’s New England Chapter recommended Vermonters take immediate action to help defeat the bill.
Evidence for HPV vaccines preventing cancer questioned
CHD’s testimony challenged the claim that HPV vaccines have been proven to prevent cancer, arguing that there is no conclusive evidence to support this assertion.
Holland and Rosenberg cited government data showing the cancer rate for the youngest, most vaccinated women increased between 2011 and 2019 to the same level as when the vaccines were first introduced.
They also cited evidence from the National Cancer Institute, which shows little change in the incidence and death rates of cervical cancer in young and middle-aged women since the introduction of HPV vaccines in the U.S.
The greatest decreases in cervical cancer incidence rates were observed in older women, who likely never received an HPV vaccine, according to CHD’s testimony.
Data also suggest that regular screening, such as a pap smear, is a more effective and affordable method for reducing cervical cancer rates. Yet data show girls who receive the HPV vaccine are less likely to undergo regular screening.
CHD’s testimony included a graphic illustrating that only 0.18% of HPV infections worldwide, including in countries with less screening and more significant exposures to co-factors that contribute to cervical cancer, ever progress to cervical cancer.
CHD emphasized that the need for HPV vaccines, particularly in higher-resource countries like the U.S., is questionable given the effectiveness of screening methods and the fact that the vast majority of HPV infections clear on their own.
HPV vax harmful, trials lacked proper placebo
Holland and Rosenberg delved deeper into the potential risks associated with HPV vaccines — particularly Merck’s Gardasil and Gardasil 9 — arguing that the clinical trials for these vaccines were inadequate and failed to properly assess the vaccines’ safety.
The clinical trials for Gardasil 9, currently the only HPV vaccine available in the U.S., were “bootstrapped to the original formulation of Gardasil, approved in 2006,” according to the testimony.
This methodology, CHD claimed, resulted in a lack of “true controlled clinical trial safety data because the safety of the original Gardasil was never compared to an inert saline placebo.”
Instead, Merck compared the vaccine to its “bioactive aluminum (a known neurotoxin) adjuvant — an ingredient specifically intended to heighten an immune system response to the vaccine.”
This lack of proper safety testing, combined with the absence of saline placebos and other clinical trial manipulations, should raise concerns about allowing children to make decisions about receiving the HPV vaccine — particularly the potential impact on their future fertility — without parental involvement, CHD said.
Holland and Rosenberg cited their book “The HPV Vaccine On Trial,” which they said “details the many concerning questions raised by the Gardasil clinical trials and the injuries reported therein and in the marketplace.”
A search of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System revealed “75,727 … reports of injury, including thousands of serious and disabling injuries, and 629 deaths” related to HPV vaccines as of Jan. 26, 2024, according to CHD’s testimony. “The majority of reported adverse events occurred in children under age 17,” Holland and Rosenberg wrote.
CHD pointed to the more than 100 cases now pending against Merck “for serious, life-altering injuries, many of which are autoimmune in nature, to young women and men following receipt of Merck’s HPV vaccines.”
Rosenberg is one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs in multi-district litigation against Merck.
Bill violates federal law
Holland and Rosenberg argued the Vermont bill violates federal law and is unconstitutional. They cited the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which requires parents to receive Vaccine Information Statements before their child is vaccinated.
“Therefore, the bill is clearly unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,” the testimony stated. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law is the supreme law of the land and that in most cases it preempts state law when there is a conflict.
CHD also pointed to a 2022 federal court decision in Booth v. Bowser resulting in a preliminary injunction against a similar law in Washington, D.C., on the grounds it conflicted with the federal law.
CHD warned that Vermont could face a similar outcome if S.151 is passed, noting U.S. District Court Judge Trevor N. McFadden’s conclusion in the case:
“States and the District are free to encourage individuals — including children — to get vaccines. But they cannot transgress on the Program Congress created. And they cannot trample the Constitution.”
CHD also cited the Mature Minor Doctrine Clarification Act, a Tennessee law signed by the state’s governor in May 2023. The law recognizes the applicability of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act’s requirement for healthcare providers to provide a Vaccine Information Statement to a minor’s parent or guardian before vaccination.
Other testimony submitted in opposition to the bill can be found here.
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
‘Too many people watched’ – George Galloway explains why RT was banned
RT | March 5, 2024
Fresh from his election to the British parliament, MP George Galloway spoke with RT on Tuesday about the state of media freedom in Britain and London’s disastrous policies in the Middle East and Ukraine.
Galloway trounced both Tory and Labour candidates in last week’s Rochdale by-election, winning twice as many votes than both major parties combined. PM Rishi Sunak denounced the result as “beyond alarming” and a threat to “our democracy itself.”
As Galloway pointed out, however, he has been elected to Parliament a total of seven times – far more than Sunak or Labour leader Keir Starmer.
“These people are hypocrites. Things like democracy, human rights, rule of law, rules-based international order, it’s just lipstick on a pig. They wipe the lipstick off whenever they no longer feel the need to look prettier,” he claimed.
“As Sunak’s speech outside Number 10 [Downing Street] on Friday about my election makes clear, it’s not beyond them even to cancel elections,” he added.
British authorities have banned RT and the Iranian PressTV outright, refused to renew the license of China’s CGTN, and blocked outlets like Venezuela’s TeleSur.
“The reason is pretty simple if you think about it: Too many people were watching these TV channels. Too many people were watching RT. Not just in Britain, but even more so in Germany. That is why RT was closed down. Because too many of the public were watching it. How’s that for freedom?” said Galloway.
The best illustration of press freedom in the UK is that “a good friend of mine is lying in the dungeon of Belmarsh top security prison,” Galloway said.
“His name is Julian Assange He is convicted of no crime. And yet he is being held with mass murderers and terrorists in the worst prison for the worst people in England. And for what? For telling the truth as a publisher.”
He admitted the government might retaliate against him for speaking to RT, but said, “I don’t care.”
“I give interviews to everybody. I’m a free man, I’m an elected free man. I have the right to speak and I will go on speaking to whomsoever wants to hear me. Nothing is solved by covering things up. Nothing is solved by denying people access to a different point of view,” Galloway said, recalling RT’s long-time slogan, “Question More.”
Galloway is no stranger to RT. He has written many op-eds for the outlet and hosted his own TV show called ‘Sputnik Orbiting the World’ during his hiatus from Parliament.
Did Covid-19 Threaten the Life of a Nation?
A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie | March 5, 2024
Was Covid-19 a Trojan Horse for an attempted New World Order?
Many consider Covid-19 to have been a worldwide ‘Trojan Horse’ event that enabled human rights and freedoms to be trampled, dangerous medical interventions to be normalised, and an unprecedented transfer of wealth to take place from ordinary people to the super-rich. There is deep concern too that this was just a trial run, and that the immanent promulgation of the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) ‘Pandemic Treaty’ and amended International Health Regulations will take these tyrannical measures to an entirely different level.
In response to these concerns, the World Council for Health (WCH) has published a Legal Brief on Preventing the Abuse of Public Health Emergencies. This document explains how governments used the declaration of an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people their basic human rights and freedoms, and to grant themselves extraordinary powers.
Did Covid-19 meet the pre-requisites to declare a legitimate state of emergency?
The critical question that should have been addressed at the time was whether the threat posed by Covid-19 represented a public health emergency that threatened the life of the nation. The Legal Brief presents four criteria to be used to determine if a state of emergency should be declared. These criteria state that the threat should:
- be actual or imminent;
- involve the whole nation;
- place the continuation of the organised life of society at risk of extinction; and
- be so extraordinary that ordinary measures for protecting public health and order are clearly inadequate.
The arguments presented in this thoroughly referenced document show that the Covid-19 event never actually met any of these criteria. Thus, as it did not meet the legal conditions of an emergency ‘threatening the life of a nation’, all derogation measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, school and small business closures, travel restrictions, and harmful vaccine mandates, were illegal breaches of International Human Rights Law (IHRL).
All States have a legal obligation to enact public policy that protects, respects, and ensures fundamental human rights. Furthermore, certain norms and fundamental human rights exist that can never be violated, not even during a declared state of emergency. Instead, during Covid-19, governments around the world chose to follow the recommendations of WHO, ignore the rights of citizens, and enact oppressive public health actions. It is also of huge concern that human rights organisations failed to hold governments to account for their abuse of emergency measures.
The Legal Brief maintains that, had people across the board been properly informed about the requirements of IHRL and the prerequisites necessary to declare a legitimate state of emergency, these gross violations of fundamental human rights would not have been possible.
Recommendations
To prevent future public health emergencies resulting in similar human rights abuses, the Legal Brief therefore recommends the following actions:
- To educate the public regarding the criteria to declare a legitimate state of emergency;
- To establish panels to monitor adherence to IHRL and communicate violations; and
- To establish activist groups to take necessary proactive legal action.
As the Legal Brief concludes:
… the widespread misuse of emergency measures during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic has confirmed the view that, de facto, there “are no ultimate institutional safeguards available for ensuring that emergency powers be used for the purpose of preserving the Constitution.” The only thing that can guarantee this is the people’s own knowledge of the law, proactive legal action, and their determination to ensure that their governments do not abuse their discretionary power by imposing self-serving, biased, or arbitrary limitations on fundamental human rights.
We trust that this Legal Brief will be useful to lawyers and lay people alike in furthering legal and lawful recourse in the pursuit of Truth and Justice. You can download the full brief here.
Pennsylvania Collaborates With DHS and CISA To Monitor Online Election-Related Speech
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | March 4, 2024
Pennsylvania’s Democratic Governor, Josh Shapiro, announced last week that, in an effort to address perceived “threats” to electoral procedures, the state is launching an initiative in partnership with various state and federal agencies.
These partners include the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and, notably, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), an organization long accused of aiding online censorship to impede freewheeling online speech.
The revelation about Pennsylvania’s collaboration with DHS and CISA surfaced after The Federalist pressed the Pennsylvania State Department for more information about the new initiative.
This program, named the Pennsylvania Election Threats Task Force, is expected to bring forth measures for the protection of the electoral system, safeguard voters from any form of intimidation, and provide accessible and trustworthy information about the election.
Al Schmidt, Secretary of the Commonwealth, stated that the task force would focus on addressing lies and baseless “conspiracy theories” aiming to delegitimize the electoral process.
Accusations have been levied against CISA for serving as the epicenter of the federal government’s efforts to censor speech, which is seen as an assault on civil liberties and First Amendment rights.
Documents acquired by America First Legal uncovered that CISA, despite being aware of the risks associated with unsupervised mail-in voting in the 2020 election, dismissed social media posts voicing similar concerns as “disinformation.”
MPs smear Gaza protestors, while others invent scare stories
By Yvonne Ridley | MEMO | March 1, 2024
Are the massive pro-Palestine marches in Britain being deliberately targeted and smeared as part of a concerted Zionist effort to use the law to stop people from joining the ranks of the growing anti-war movement? That would certainly explain the furore over MPs’ safety which came to a head last week when Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons and a member of the Labour Friends of Israel lobby group, cited threats to politicians in his disastrous handling of a debate on calls for a ceasefire in Gaza.
I pose the question after some extraordinary events have been picked up and anchored in a media campaign which has collectively shown nothing but hostility towards Palestinians in favour of the Zionist Israeli state as the genocidal onslaught in Gaza continues. Throw in some decidedly Islamophobic comments by prominent Conservative MPs, and there is a really toxic atmosphere brewing in advance of this year’s General Election, with Muslims — “Islamists” — cast as the bad guys.
Today, my suspicions were fuelled by none other than British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak who resorted to shameless smears and scare tactics as he warned police chiefs of a “growing consensus that mob rule is replacing democratic rule”. Calling for more robust police action, Sunak used inflammatory language to insist that politicians need to be protected from intimidatory protests outside their homes.
However, the Home Office has nevertheless announced a £31 million package aimed at protecting MPs. It is said to be in response to the impact of the ongoing “Israel-Hamas conflict”.
Meanwhile, in Scotland police were called to investigate bizarre claims that the Glasgow constituency office of Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament was “stormed” by 30 pro-Palestine protesters, with MSP Paul Sweeney criticising officers for taking 27 minutes to respond even though the office staff were left “distressed”.
Police Scotland insist that the storming of the politicians’ shared office never happened as described, and rejected the claims made by Sweeney. According to him, campaigners forced their way into the office that he shares with party leader Anas Sarwar, and fellow MSPs Pam Duncan-Glancy and Pauline McNeil.
“It may well be that this entire furore over alleged threats by protestors is confected,” said Mick Napier, a co-founder of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, whose members took part in the protest. Certainly, the example of Sweeney caught flagrantly inventing threats to the staff suggests that this might be the case. Sweeney supports a party leader who endorses Israel withholding water, food and fuel from the entire population of Gaza — not only cruel, but also collective punishment, a war crime — while he complains that people opposing such barbarism raise their voices.
“Although in this case voices weren’t even raised,” explained Napier. “There seems to be something new in the shamelessness with which our politicians lie to the public. Could it be because the mainstream media have given up any pretence of investigating such fabrications?”
Despite repeated attempts to contact Sarwar, McNeil, Duncan-Clancy and Sweeney, none were prepared to offer a comment to me about the incident.
European political analyst Kevin Ovenden wrote about the incident on 22 February: “Two elected politicians have been exposed today for simply lying that they faced violent intimidation when they merely had to deal with democratic lobbying and political pressure. One is the Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament Paul Sweeney. Police in Glasgow refuted his highly charged claim that anti-war protesters stormed his office and intimidated his staff. They did no such thing, as the police concluded, having been present throughout for an orderly protest, without even any civil disobedience, by a small group of middle-aged or older women and men.
“That has not stopped the Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle (for years a nodding-donkey Labour MP) today smearing the entire anti-war movement as in some way incubating terrorism as justification for his anti-democratic manoeuvres on behalf of [Labour Party leader] Keir Starmer.”
Ovenden blames craven support for Israel by the two main establishment parties, Conservative and Labour, for “not only leading to authoritarianism against public protest and free speech. It is now even crushing the limited democratic avenues available through parliament.”
The streets of London have witnessed some of the largest, peaceful, pro-Palestine demonstrations in the capital’s history, but that did not stop Sunak from calling an urgent meeting in Downing Street for police chiefs on Thursday. He urged them to use all of their existing powers to crack down on the alleged intimidation, disruption and subversion.
“We simply cannot allow this pattern of increasingly violent and intimidatory behaviour which is, as far as anyone can see, intended to shout down free debate and stop elected representatives doing their job,” insisted the prime minister.
Without a hint of irony, the man who has so far given his unconditional support to Israel, currently under investigation for genocide by the International Court of Justice, added: “That is simply undemocratic… I am going to do whatever it requires to protect our democracy, and our values, which we all hold dear.”
Del Babu, a former chief superintendent in London’s Metropolitan Police, said language like “mob rule” was not “helpful”. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that appealing to people to demonstrate less could have “unintended consequences” and potentially lead to more people protesting.
“We will continue to march until there is an immediate ceasefire,” said Shamiul Joarder of Friends of Al-Aqsa. The organisation is part of a coalition of groups organising the marches which have brought world attention to London’s streets.
Members from all six groups, along with Labour MP and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, and the campaign group Liberty, held a press conference earlier this week in parliament criticising unhelpful language used by politicians. They claim that anti-Muslim “hysteria” and pressure from the government had provoked the Metropolitan Police into heavy-handed and “discriminatory” policing of “peaceful mass protests”.
Home Secretary James Cleverly, meanwhile, told the BBC: “I genuinely don’t know what these regular protests are seeking to achieve. They have made their position clear, we recognise that there are many people in the UK that hold that position.”
Hours later, 104 starving Palestinians in Gaza were massacred — witnesses say that Israeli troops opened fire on them — as they gathered around an aid convoy distributing food. If Cleverly doesn’t understand the point of the street demonstrations then he has the emotional intelligence of a brick and a surname which doesn’t quite match his IQ.
Calls for a ceasefire will continue until Israel’s genocide of the people of occupied Palestine is stopped in its murderous tracks. Which bit of “Stop Killing Civilians” do our politicians not understand?
Ex-UK Army Chief Nick Carter, Once In Charge of “Misinformation” Surveillance Army Unit, Joins Tony Blair Institute
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 28, 2024
A new noteworthy instance of what can be described as the UK-style revolving door policy, where those working for the government and private entities switch employers in both directions, has happened in that country.
A former chief of the British Army, under whose watch the 77th Brigade was spying on citizens during the pandemic, has now joined Tony Blair’s organization.
General Nick Carter is therefore a new recruit at the Institute for Global Change (globalist not in name only, either) – which the former British prime minister set up to supposedly create “open, inclusive and prosperous countries for all.”
Carter previously “distinguished” himself at the peak of the pandemic for allowing a unit under his command to hunt down “bad” speech on the internet – that of citizens skeptical of Covid measures and related contentious issues, whatever was treated as “Covid misinformation.”
Carter’s fellow new recruit at the Institute is former Government Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance. Another new hire is Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin. They will act as members of a team of “expert strategic counselors” in what critics might call Blair’s elitist globalist group – his own version of WEF, even.
Before becoming Blair’s private adviser, Carter, a decorated officer, served as the principal military advisor to the prime minister (reports don’t say which ones), as head of the Armed Forces, and finally the chief of the Defense Staff for the United Kingdom.
Back in the spring of 2020, reports cited Carter, then at the helm of the Defense Staff, saying that the 77th Brigade was “countering coronavirus misinformation online.”
Not a traditional deployment of a country’s military potential, even if it is one set up to carry out physiological warfare, like 77th Brigade had been.
And it didn’t make things better that the target of this warfare was free speech on the UK’s citizens – on Twitter, Facebook and the like.
No less than 2,000 military personnel were involved in this, with a dubious to say the least goal of what looks like a straight-forward attempt to sway opinion among the population.
This was at the time phrased as delivering “means of shaping behavior through the use of dynamic narratives.”
Related:
Tony Blair Institute Calls For a Digital ID For All British Citizens, Calls It The “Great Enabler”
Featured Video
Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Dirty Little Secret behind the “Global Terrorism Index”
The Omission of Israeli Terrorism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
By Karin Brothers | Global Research | December 6, 2014
… The Israeli settlements — all of which are illegal – have been identified as a major impediment to peace. The refusal of a major “global” terrorism report to name the Israeli settlers as one of the groups most responsible for terrorism not only misrepresents a major source of regional violence but exposes the Global Terrorism Index as a propaganda tool that supports a U.S. agenda.
In recent years, governments have been attempting to thwart terrorism by blocking supportive fund-raising. When it comes to Israeli settlements, however, the US and Canada actually encourage fund-raising by giving organizations (such as Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC) and the Jewish National Fund) financial support in the form of donor tax-deductions.
Charities which provide funds for the Israeli settlements should be regarded as terror-financing organizations. They should not only lose their tax-deductible status, but they should be banned because they support the violation of international humanitarian law. The terror-financing laws that are being strictly enforced for Muslim charities should be applied to Christian and Jewish charities as well. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech
- The Black Cube Files: How Former Mossad Operatives Flipped a Nation
- Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told
- Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief
- Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks
- Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s ‘nuclear weapon’ that forced US retreat: Medvedev
- Energy crisis will last for months – Kremlin envoy
- Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran
- Forty days that shook the Empire: How Iran turned the tables on US and prevailed
- Netanyahu unilaterally declares Lebanon outside of ceasefire deal
- If Americans Knew
- Tucker Carlson on Israel: This Is the Behavior of an Ally? Really?
- Gazans face a triple crisis: severe shortages of water and bread, healthcare in tatters
- NY Times reports how Netanyahu took the US into Iran War
- A sigh of relief over Iran, but Gaza and Lebanon in dire straits – Daily Update
- Thousands dead and neighborhoods razed to the ground: Aid agencies fear southern Lebanon is becoming the new Gaza
- The war the US is fighting for Israel could cost trillions
- ‘Cigarette Burns, Nail Wounds’: Toddler Tortured in Gaza to Coerce Father
- Trump Says US Sent ‘a Lot of Guns’ to Protesters in Iran
- Israeli forces destroy 17 UN peacekeeper cameras in south Lebanon
- US-Israeli strikes ‘completely destroy’ synagogue in Tehran
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 