Canada: censoring pro-Palestine voices triggers backlash at university
MEMO | November 20, 2023
The University of Ottawa is under fire for suspending a medical student over pro-Palestine social media posts. A petition signed by nearly 50,000 people has accused the faculty of misusing its authority, and intimidating residents and students through censorship. The signatories have urged people to call on the university to investigate associate professor of family medicine Dr Yoni Freedhoff.
A resident physician in his 4th year of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Dr Yipeng Ge, is said to have been suspended after Freedhoff, who appears to be an ardent support of Israel according to his profile on X, accused Ge of anti-Semitism. In a blog, Freedhoff targeted Ge for his pro-Palestinian social media posts. He also called out Ge on X, claiming that he was spreading anti-Semitism. Ge was suspended shortly after the publication of Freedhoff’s blog.
A petition demanding Ge’s reinstatement has been signed by 48,365 people. The petition expresses solidarity with Ge and calls on the university to reverse his suspension and apologise for failing to follow due process. It demands a thorough investigation into the decision to suspend Ge and condemns the rise in anti-Palestinian discrimination and censorship at the university, arguing that the suspension violates university policies on free expression, student rights and occupational health and safety.
Ge should have the chance to challenge the suspension with impartial oversight, insist the signatories, who call on the university to protect him from harassment by a faculty member, Freedhoff, that puts him at physical and reputational risk without repercussions. Furthermore, it criticises the university administration for failing to provide a safe learning environment and enable Palestinian advocacy on campus through actions like Ge’s suspension.
This suspension is another example of the growing crackdown on pro-Palestine voices on campuses and social media platforms. Pro-Israel groups have doubled their efforts to silence criticism of the apartheid state. Members of the Palestine Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London were suspended by the university last month, following a solidarity rally for Gaza. Moreover, a chilling threat to student free speech has emerged across US campuses. Rights groups have warned that pro-Israel donors are seeking to crush pro-Palestine activism through intimidation and threats.
A glimpse into the scale of Israel’s crackdown on social media users was given earlier this year with the revelation that the occupation state is one of the world’s leading countries in demanding the removal of videos from social media giant TikTok. Last week, the site came under pressure from pro-Israel celebrities and “Jewish influencers” to crack down on pro-Palestine voices and content, according to a shocking new report by the New York Times.
Israeli army detains dozens, including women, journalists, in West Bank raids
Israeli soldiers raid the Balata camp for Palestinian refugees, east of Nablus in the occupied West Bank on November 19, 2023 [JAAFAR ASHTIYEH/AFP via Getty Images]
MEMO | November 19, 2023
UK government keeps secret files on critics – Observer
RT | November 18, 2023
At least 15 British government departments have been engaged in a deliberate social media and internet profiling campaign against public experts in various fields to ensure that none of its critics are allowed to speak at the cabinet-sponsored events, the Observer reported on Saturday, citing a trove of data it had seen.
The government officials in each department had specific guidelines regulating what exactly they should look for and requesting them to compile and keep “secret files” on the speakers deemed to be critical of the cabinet, the paper said.
The profiling usually involved checking a person’s Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn accounts as well as doing a Google search on such individuals using specific keywords like “criticism of the government or prime minister.” The officials were then advised to look through up to 10 pages of the search results or a period of between three and five years, the report said.
The UK Education Department – one of those engaged in the profiling campaign, according to the Observer – outright denied resorting to such practices in a response to the freedom of information request filed by the Privacy International group last year. The group was investigating social media monitoring by the government at that time.
“Making a concerted effort to search for negative information in this way is directed surveillance,” the Privacy International legal director, Caroline Wilson Palow, told the Observer.
The data on the practice were shared with the paper by a law firm, Leigh Day, that is currently pursuing legal action against the government on behalf of at least two persons affected by such practices.
“This is likely to have impacted large numbers of individuals, many of whom won’t know civil servants hold secret files on them. Such practices are extremely dangerous,” Tessa Gregory, partner at Leigh Day, told the Observer. The lawyer maintained that such hidden checks are in violation of data protection laws and potentially of equality and human rights laws as well.
One of those who hired Leigh Day was Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert and an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), one of the UK’s leading security think tanks. “The full extent of this is shocking and probably not fully known. I was lucky enough to be given clearcut, obvious evidence,” he told the paper, adding that he was also aware of 12 other experts who had found out that the government had been blacklisting them.
According to Kaszeta, he received a public apology from the government in July and was informed in August that the 15 departments in question had withdrawn those guidelines pending a Cabinet Office review.
A spokesman for the Cabinet Office told the Observer that the government was “reviewing the guidance and have temporarily withdrawn it to prevent any misinterpretation of the rules.”
“I Want Everybody’s Name.” Nikki Haley Ignores the First Amendment As She Demands an End to Online Anonymity
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | November 14, 2023
Presidential hopeful from the Republican party, Nikki Haley, has come out in favor of removing online anonymity, recruiting all social media account holders to verify their accounts with a government ID.
Haley said anonymous social media accounts and “misinformation” are a “national security threat.”
However, her sentiments have fueled concerns surrounding censorship and freedom of speech.
Haley, in an interview with Fox News, emphasized her demand for transparency in social media algorithms. The understanding of algorithms, she believes, would reveal the reasons behind certain content delivery on these platforms.
Haley voiced her concerns over the surge in unidentifiable accounts on social media and the alleged misinformation she says they disseminate. She affirms these as potential threats to national security that need to be addressed swiftly and decidedly. She expressed her viewpoint, maintaining that “Every person on social media should be verified by their name. It’s a national security threat.”
“I want everybody’s name,” Haley said on the Ruthless podcast.
Haley also proposed a strategy to mitigate bot activity originating from Russia, Iran, and China by implementing stringent verifications for social media accounts. She believes this measure would improve conduct on these platforms, positing that the knowledge of their posts being seen by known relations would lead to a rise in “civility.”
In oppressive regimes, anonymity is often a shield for dissidents and activists. It allows them to speak out against government abuses, organize protests, and share information without immediately revealing their identity. Mandatory ID verification would strip away this layer of protection, making it easier for authoritarian governments to identify, track, and prosecute individuals who oppose them.
Knowing that their identities could be easily uncovered, many would-be dissidents might choose to remain silent rather than risk their safety. This chilling effect on free speech would be detrimental to the fight for human rights and democracy. In countries where dissent is already dangerous, further suppression of free speech can strengthen authoritarian rule.
Authoritarian regimes often employ extensive surveillance to monitor and control their citizens. Mandatory ID verification on social media would hand these governments another tool for surveillance. This could lead to more targeted repression, as governments could more easily identify and monitor the activities of dissidents when social media platforms are compelled to hand over the information they hold on users.
The Constitutional Implications of Haley’s Demands
The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression. Mandatory ID verification on social media could be seen as a form of censorship, limiting individuals’ ability to speak freely online. Historically, the Supreme Court has been protective of anonymous speech as a vital part of the freedom of expression, as seen in cases like Talley v. California (1960) and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995). These cases underscore the right to distribute anonymous literature and the protection of anonymous speech, respectively.
Related to the First Amendment, there’s a historical precedent for the right to anonymity in political speech. In the Federalist Papers, for example, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote under the pseudonym “Publius” to argue for the ratification of the Constitution itself. Without the right to anonymity, there would be no America as we know it.
This anonymity allowed for the free exchange of ideas without fear of retribution. Requiring ID verification could discourage individuals from expressing unpopular or dissenting opinions, thus stifling democratic discourse.
YouTube Boasts About Elevating “Quality” Content, Collaborating With the WHO, and Suppressing “Misinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 15, 2023
YouTube (Google) is yet another in a series of tech behemoths that feel the need to declare their stance on content, including its effective algorithmic manipulation, just as US primaries are ushering the country into another year of presidential elections.
Beating around that bush – Google representatives now talk about processes, procedures, and tools of censorship of health-related information that, unfortunately, can easily be “repurposed” to serve other, for example, political ends.
Much of the conversation rests on what Google wants to portray as its laurels from “the previous epidemic” – which too many people and creators see from a diametrically opposed point of view, as a dark time of nearly unbridled censorship and suppression of free speech.
A video now published by Yahoo Finance reveals not only that Google has a “chief clinical officer,” but also how that officer, Michael Howell, sees the role of this super powerful tech corporation in determining what users are likely to see, see first, or see at all on a platform like YouTube.
Howell, naturally, sees nothing wrong with this and even, to all intents and purposes, brags that YouTube is working to make sure legacy media have advantage over independent creators, and that the latter may easily face censorship.
That’s the takeaway from his words, which he chose to phrase thus: YouTube works to “lift up high quality content, even as we work to lower, and make less prominent content that isn’t accurate or helpful to users.”
The whole interview is positioned as an exploration of how “misinformation grows and spreads” supposedly in sync with the amount of content and the number of users. There is even the assertion made by Yahoo that medical sector “misinformation” is not only very present among users but also “in the broader medical community.”
While this may or may not signal continued censorship of “disfavored” medical professionals, YouTube Head of Healthcare & Public Health (yes, that’s a YouTube job title these days, too) Dr. Garth Graham shared that the platform is the first to start “labeling health information that’s coming from licensed doctors, licensed nurses, licensed healthcare professionals.”
And even after all these years of sometimes completely arbitrary censorship YouTube is supposed to be taken as a “credible source of information (users) can trust” – as it works with the National Academy of Medicine and of course, the World Health Organization (WHO) to craft its definitions, and then “raise that up” – i.e., algorithmically promote, at the expense of other content.
Graham had more curious things to say, such as that while clearly committed to censoring what (or, whatever) Google decides is “delicate (sic) and dangerous information” – people are still supposed to view it as an “open platform”!
Either Graham doesn’t know what an open platform is, or he hopes YouTube/Google users don’t.
There’s also a good amount of patronizing toward those users, as in them needing to be hand-held (by Google) pretty much all the way in order to discern information from misinformation and make appropriate decisions.
“So, you know, we’re an open platform, but the real goal is how do you balance getting good information to people at the right time (…) while making sure that we remove delicate or dangerous information.”
Asked how Google has already managed (shocker) to get the government to participate in posting videos promoting their policies and what “conversations” preceded this, the Google exec said that “the entire healthcare eco-system” was already “energized” to get their message across.
And he counted the government as well as hospitals and physicians as part of this eco-system. One of them, last but not least, is the WHO.
What we know for certain from a great number of internal documents that have emerged over the past months both from Twitter and Facebook is that these two were being “led” to do certain things by the government and its agencies.
Google’s position in the interview is suggested to be the opposite – namely, at one point Howell is asked if the company basically instructed all these national and international healthcare players on what content to make, and have “trending” (mostly artificially, one might add.)
Howell dances around this question – or statement – by saying that the (pandemic) produced a community of creators from the health sector.
But as we know, many of them also got their voices silenced, however, that is not something anyone should expect Google to address.
Instead, the talk is obviously about the “approved” community of healthcare creators.
But, says Howell: “If there’s no good content out there that people want to watch, it’s very hard to show (that) content to users.”
And, cynics would say – then you write an algorithm that shoves that content into everybody’s “recommended” videos anyway.
But, Howell decided to claim that “people responded well to YouTube’s partnerships” – where that last word means, government and international bodies and institutions.
Dear Lord, protect us from Our Local Epidemiologist
She knows not what she’s doing and she and her ilk are killing and harming too many people. Amen.
Your Local Epidemiologist at one of her Disinformation Galas. She doesn’t look too traumatized to me.
BY BILL RICE, JR. | NOVEMBER 15, 2023
America’s local epidemiologist is a lady named Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, who publishes the most popular and lucrative “Science” newsletter on Substack. The Substack is called Your Local Epidemiologist.
Since she is my local epidemiologist and has more than 211,000 subscribers (more than 20,000 paid), I sometimes read Dr. Jetelina’s dispatches to see what I shouldn’t think.
Her latest dispatch informed me our local epidemiologist is extremely concerned about the rise in vaccine hesitancy. But what really frightens her is the continued prevalence of misinformation and disinformation and the fact fewer people seem to be trusting our trusted public institutions and experts like herself.
A few excerpts from recent newsletters should give readers a sense of why this particular influencer is terrified for her own safety and the safety of all the other scientists she argues are being “harassed” for speaking “the truth.” As I’m prone to do, I’ll offer a few of my own editorial comments on her editorial comments.
***
In her most recent article, the headline expresses Dr. Jetelina’s concern.
Drop in routine vaccinations
Driven by an increase in vaccine exemptions and misinformation.
The lede paragraph (emphasis added):
“CDC released the latest vaccine exemptions and routine vaccination rates data for last school year. This, coupled with new data on growing acceptance of vaccine misinformation, shows a slow, painful bleed.”
Re-stated: Despite 46 months of highly-coordinated, non-stop, ultra-expensive efforts to defeat vaccine hesitancy, it turns out too many members of the the public still have a “growing acceptance of vaccine misinformation.” If this was not the case, Our Local Epidemiologist (OLE) wouldn’t be so alarmed and wouldn’t have written all these stories.
OLE asks, “What is indirectly causing a decline in vaccinations?” and then answers her own question:
“Misinformation is increasing. Our information landscape has dramatically changed—false news spreads 6 times faster than the truth on social media, and 70% of Americans get health news on social media. Public health has not kept up.”
One might ask who gets to determine “the truth?” The answer, of course, would be: People like Our Local Epidemiologist.
By far, the most massive “social media” platform is Facebook … so I guess Facebook is letting vaccine “false information” spread to its one billion users.
This strikes me as a giant fib as I personally know Facebook has suspended my account at least a half dozen times and, when my account wasn’t suspended, any post I made about a Covid topic was “flagged” or seen by zero people brave enough to hit my post with a “like.”
It would be interesting information to learn how many millions of people have been temporarily or permanently banned or shadow-banned by Facebook’s algorithms, Artificial Intelligence and the company’s more than 15,000 “content moderators.”
Whatever this number, it’s not nearly large enough for America’s terrified and frustrated local epidemiologist.
Get Vaccinated or Else …
More specifically, OLE says the lack of sufficient censorship is “is directly impacting behaviors like getting vaccinated.”
I now know the answer to just about every public health issue for OLE is more vaccines and more people getting more of these vaccines.
Like the devil, OLE mixes the truth with lies. The first five words of this sentence convey an obvious truth:
“Loss of trust in institutions also drives misinformation and behaviors,” she writes, adding, “This … will surely have dire consequences to communities.”
So what really bothers OLE is that more people have “lost trust in institutions.”
In the thousands of words she’s written about the plagues of misinformation and disinformation, she doesn’t tell us why so many people might have lost faith in their now non-trusted institutions …. except, the only possible answer (for her) … the public has been getting “disinformation” from social media.
It took Our Local Epidemiologist years to get her credentials to become OLE, but one could condense the operative curriculum message to one sentence: “Everyone get your dad-blasted vaccines!”
I think I’ve got it. Not enough censorship = too much disinformation, which leads to too much “vaccine hesitancy” which = “dire consequences” – which means everyone is going to die … from Covid, the flu, RSV and the measles.
***
In a linked article from June 27, 2023, OLE agues that not only are communities going to be in dire straits due to vaccine hesitancy, the nation’s narrative-spouting scientists are also increasingly coming under attack.
The headline gives us OLE’s “truth” …
‘Harassment is out of control’
In this article, OLE reports that she feels increasingly threatened and gives us the example of another scientist, Peter Hotez, who “experienced pile-ons, stalking, and bullying after events unfolded on Twitter. So much so that law enforcement got involved. A complete nightmare.”
Some readers will remember Hotez as the pediatrician/scientist who was afraid to debate Robert Kennedy, Jr. on Joe Rogan’s podcast show.
As far as I can tell, nobody has physically attacked Hotez and his family members are still alive. This ensured that the “survival rate” (from mob violence) of narrative-spouting epidemiologists remains 100 percent.
Whatever happened to the Hotez family … “… He’s not alone. These nightmares are now a common occurrence for scientists and physicians in public health. Both online and offline. For vaccines. For gun violence. For reproductive health. And apparently for wildfires now, too.”
“It’s gotten out of control, which becomes an individual risk as well as a risk to the communities we serve.”
According to this sub headline ….
This is a huge problem
Vaccine deaths, injuries and lockdowns that caused suicides and millions of people to lose their jobs was NOT even an itty-bitty problem … but all these nightmarish non-attacks on well-paid, heroic scientists and doctors are a “huge problem.”
I didn’t know any of this, but I do now.
In her article on terrorized scientists, OLE doesn’t mention whether any “pro-vaxxers” have threatened the life of, say, Robert Kennedy, Jr.. Or if any of the hundreds of thousands of scientists, doctors and nurses who questioned the necessity of Covid vaccines have perhaps suffered some measure of unpleasantness due to their views.
Per Our Local Epidemiologist, it’s only “anti-vaxxers” who bully, smear and attack others.
A political scientist might also ask who actually possesses the power to fire large numbers of people or who has the power to discriminate against unpopular minorities who should not be allowed to use a water fountain … attend a play or travel outside of the country.
OLE informs us with another sub-headline:
‘Women scientists are particularly at risk’
OLE even published an anonymous note someone left her.
I hate to suggest I might be tougher than Our Local Epidemiologist, but if someone left me a note like this I don’t think I’d be traumatized the rest of my life … or even for two seconds.
Speaking for all the terrorized scientists, OLE writes:
“… too often scientists assume the consequences alone. This takes a significant personal toll.”
Which makes me wonder what terrible consequences people like her have been forced bear alone or what this “significant toll” really was or is.
In the case of OLE, before Covid, she was an obscure epidemiologist nobody had heard of. Today, she is a millionaire Substack author who also works for the CDC and the White House.
As she informed us in another article, Dr. Jetelina has been asked to speak at “quite a few” conferences:
“Last week I was invited to the Nobel Prize Summit on information integrity at the National Academy of Science. I’ve attended quite a few of these types of events lately—discussions on mis- and disinformation’s impact on truth, trust, and hope.”
So one toll on her is that she’s been invited to participate at the “Nobel Prize Summit on information integrity at the National Academy of Science” plus a lot of other swanky Disinformation Galas.
I’m sure she was heckled relentlessly by her colleagues and was constantly looking over her shoulder in case some bellboy slipped her a note saying he’s not impressed by her brand of epidemiology.
I include this excerpt to illustrate it’s not just OLE who’s worried about mis- and disinformation – it’s everyone who’s attending all these summits.
My main take-away from the whining of OLE is that her colleagues (millions of them) mean business about stopping this mis- and disinformation.
If you haven’t picked up on her views yet, here they are in another sub-headline:
Mis/disinformation is a major problem.
This sentence must be what really irks our local epidemiologist:
“Truth is now debatable.”
Here, I can only assume that her debating point is that the truth should NOT be “debatable.”
However, I bet she’d get a debate on this point from Socrates, a man who was put to death for asking politically-incorrect questions.
“No questioning allowed” equals no debate, which actually equals no Scientific Method – which is what Our Local Epidemiologist really espouses.
These sentences dropped my jaw:
“The major challenge in scientific communication is that the truth is now networked by peers. Because of this, disinformation and misinformation are eroding public trust in science, becoming a threat to the planet, and costing lives.”
(Aside: The same day I read several articles by OLE, I listened to this classic rift from the late great George Carlin, who told us years ago our planet was one tough sucker and was going to be just fine – even if too many people used plastic or drive in gas-powered cars.)
MORE worry-mongering from OLE …
“But it goes beyond a pandemic—climate change, routine vaccinations, gun violence, reproductive health. Everyone—the private sector, government, researchers, and communities nationally and internationally—is rightfully worried.”
FWIW, this is brazen misinformation. Everyone is NOT “worried.” For example, I’m not. In fact, for hundreds of millions of people, the things that worry Our Local Epidemiologist have never caused us to lose one wink of sleep.
This, in fact, is what really worries OLE and her colleagues at the Disinformation Junkets. Not enough people are worried about the things she says we should be worried about.
Not only do we no longer trust our institutions – which have of been spectacularly wrong on everything Covid-related – we don’t trust people like her either.
In fact, what worries us is that people like her have so much power and influence over our lives.
Not only this, she wants more control and power. And since she is our local epidemiologist and consults with the CDC and White House, she’s probably going to get what she wants.
Let me close with a headline that gives us OLE’s professional diagnosis. When it comes to the plague of disinformation and misinformation, What the world has is …
Too much talk. Too little action.
Writes OLE:
“I’m getting increasingly frustrated with inaction.”
“Institutions are needed for the long-term solution:
- Governments. Congressional courage is needed. In the U.S., other government entities have a role, too: the National Institute of Health (train scientists to communicate and translate; prioritize funding more research in this space), the FDA and CDC … Department of Defense (create a robust, well-funded surveillance system to understand where, how, and what health misinformation is circulating in real-time) …. State governments have a role with medical boards and local action, too.
- Private industry needs to get their act together: Is this truly the future we want? The lowest hanging fruit is transparency: content moderation, algorithm impacts, data processing, and integrity policies …”
OLE is not subtle; I get her point …
It’s not like Our Local Epidemiologist is camouflaging what she wants. What OLE really wants is for Big Brother to quit pussy-footing around and scare the hell out of many more people, create a lot more “surveillance systems” and use our state medical boards to repeal the licenses of more “science deniers.”
In conclusion, Our Local Epidemiologist is a menace; she’s the worst nightmare for anyone who still values free speech, scientific debate and prefers a “public health” system that’s not killing and maiming so many members of the public.
Mayo Clinic is Sued For Suspending Doctor Over Online Posts on Covid and Transgenderism
By Ben Squires | Reclaim The Net | November 15, 2023
Dr. Michael Joyner, backed by the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA), has initiated a lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic College, including its president and board chair. The suit arises from disciplinary actions taken against Joyner following his public comments on topics within his field of expertise. Specifically, the controversy revolves around statements he made to the New York Times about gender differences in athletic performance and to CNN regarding the use of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 treatment. The Mayo Clinic’s response, which involved suspension, salary review implications, and strict media interview oversight, is at the heart of this legal challenge.
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
Lucas Morel, chair of the AFA’s academic committee, emphasized the lawsuit’s significance, asserting that “academic freedom is a key guarantor of scientific integrity.”
Morel expects the case to establish a precedent for the freedom of scientists and academics to express their professional opinions without undue influence from financial or political interests. The AFA, which previously supported Joyner during his disciplinary hearings, is now financing this lawsuit, highlighting the organization’s commitment to protecting academic freedom.
Joyner’s legal action, filed with the State of Minnesota’s Third Judicial District, seeks compensation for the damages incurred from the disciplinary measures. These included a week-long unpaid suspension, denial of salary increase, and a potential termination threat, all of which have reportedly harmed Joyner’s finances and professional reputation. The lawsuit, handled by Allen Harris Law, was filed after allowing the defendants to review and respond, which they declined.
Eight items of major concern regarding the proposed WHO treaty and IHR amendments
By Meryl Nass, MD | November 13, 2023
1. Biological warfare agent proliferation.
The treaty and the proposed amendments instruct nations that they must perform surveillance for potential pandemic pathogens, build or maintain sequencing labs, and both share actual specimens with the WHO (where a BioHub has been created for this purpose) and also share the sequences online. This demands the proliferation of biological weapons agents — which I believe is a crime (based on my interpretation of Security Council Resolution 1540 and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention).
1 a. The June 2, 2023 “Bureau text” version of the treaty also called for nations performing Gain-of-Function research to reduce “administrative impediments” to the work. In other words, restrictions on the research should be relaxed, which would make lab leaks more likely to occur. This paragraph was removed from the October 30, 2023 version of the treaty.
2. Giving the WHO a blank check to create new rules in the future
The treaty calls for a Conference of Parties and a new WHO Secretariat to be created in the future that will make rules for how the pandemic prevention and response apparatus will work—which provides essentially a blank, signed contract to the WHO to create whatever rules it wants.
3. Liability-free vaccines developed at warp speed will be produced
The treaty calls for rapid vaccine development /production and shaving time off all aspects of vaccine development, testing and manufacture. This requires vaccines to be used without licenses, and the treaty calls for nations to have laws in place to issue Emergency Use Authorizations for this purpose, and to “manage” liability issues. See “The WHO’s Proposed Treaty will Increase Man-Made Pandemics” for more information about this. The US, EU and others have specifically called for 100-day vaccine development and an additional 30 days for production of pandemic vaccines. This would allow for no meaningful human testing.
4. Human rights guarantees have been removed in the new amendments
The amendments removed “human rights, dignity and freedom of persons” from the existing IHR language. Following complaints, this phrase was later inserted into the Treaty–but the treaty may not be accepted in 2024. Meanwhile, the amendments require only a simple majority to pass, are being written in secret, and so it is likely that the most problematic issues will be found in the amendments.
5. Social media surveillance and censorship of citizens is required
Both the amendments and the treaty call for nation states to perform surveillance of their citizens’ social media, and to censor and prevent the spread of information that does not conform to the WHO’s public health narratives. Yet the treaty also calls for citizens to be free to access information, while they are to be protected from “infodemics,” which are defined as too much information. Citizens must also be stopped from spreading mis- and disinformation.
6. We may not learn what is in the amendments until after they are passed
The amendments have been negotiated entirely in secret for the past nine months, while there have been multiple consecutive drafts of the pandemic treaty released to the public during that time. And while the negotiated amendments were to be tabled for public review in January, the WHO’s principal legal officer has provided a legal fig leaf to avoid the obligation of making them public 4 months ahead of the vote. Will the public even see the amendments before a vote on them occurs?
Why is there such secrecy regarding the proposed amendments?
7. The WHO Director-General could become your personal physician
According to the proposed amendments, the WHO D-G would be able to commandeer and move medical supplies from one country to another, decide what treatments can be used, and restrict the use of other treatments.
8. When will the WHO be able to use its newly minted powers?
The amendments will come into force after a declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) is made. However, a declaration of a potential PHEIC will also trigger these powers. The powers can be extended even after a PHEIC is over, as we have seen with COVID and monkeypox (MPOX) declarations by the D-G.
The treaty will be in force continuously, requiring no declaration or pandemic to confer new powers to the WHO.
See detailed report:
Ukraine ‘cynically’ not interested in minority rights – Hungary
RT | November 13, 2023
Ukraine has no intention of resolving concerns about its treatment of Hungarians and other minorities living in its western province, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto told reporters in a meeting broadcast on his Facebook page on Monday.
Instead, the government in Kiev has focused on duping the rest of the world into believing the minority rights issue is “resolved or almost resolved” – even as the situation for Hungarians living in the province of Transcarpathia “deteriorates” even further.
“I think it’s very cynical on the part of Ukrainians that, as can be clearly seen, they in no way want to resolve issues that are important to us, in no way want to return the rights taken away from Transcarpathian Hungarians,” Szijjarto said.
To illustrate the minority’s worsening plight, Szijjarto described a letter sent by the Ukrainian Ministry of Education instructing schools that the Ukrainian language “should be used as the state language not only during classes, but also during breaks between teachers and students,” even in schools where the majority of students – and teachers – are Hungarian.
Last month, Szijjarto demanded Ukraine repeal several laws seen as impinging on the rights of ethnic Hungarians, warning that Budapest would block Kiev’s efforts to join the EU so long as the discrimination continued.
Hungarian President Viktor Orban took things one step further, declaring Hungary would not support its neighbor “on any issue in international life until it restores the laws that guaranteed the rights of Transcarpathian Hungarians.”
Approximately 156,000 ethnic Hungarians living in Ukraine have seen their situation worsen dramatically since 2015, according to Szijjarto. The nation’s other ethnic minorities – including 150,000 Romanians and 250,000 Moldovans – have similarly suffered under a series of laws mandating the use of the Ukrainian language in official settings.
The legislation, which has come under fire from human rights groups and the Council of Europe, has led to the closing of some 100 Hungarian schools in Ukraine, leaving just 20% of the country’s Hungarian population receiving lessons in their own language.
The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission urged Ukraine to improve the recognition of its national minorities if it hopes to enter the EU in a report published earlier this year. Its proposed reforms include publishing official state documents in minority languages, delaying the introduction of Ukrainian as a principal language in schools, providing interpreter services at Ukrainian public events, and ditching Ukrainian-language content quotas for minority media outlets. Currently, just 10% of a media outlet’s content can be broadcast in the minority language.
Obama Says He’s Close to a “First Amendment Absolutist,” Then Adds a “But,” Criticizes “Certain Kinds of Speech”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 12, 2023
President Barack Obama has reemerged in the media, as the election campaign in the US is picking up pace.
And he got his two cents in on a range of issues, including free speech in the context of the First Amendment, “misinformation,” social networks vs. democracy – as his politically like-minded comrades like to position the situation – and, of course, the role of “AI.”
Obama was a guest on a Verge podcast when he – a former US president, twice sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the country’s Constitution – seemed to water down the meaning of that oath.
At one point, he told the host that he is “close” to being a First Amendment “absolutist” – only to add, “but we have laws against certain kinds of speech that we deem to be really harmful to the public health and welfare.”
Obama’s understanding of the First Amendment, according to this statement, is not that this legislation is there to protect the right to free speech – but rather that it should secure a “marketplace” of various ideas.
In his own words: “(…) these ideas battle themselves out, and ultimately, we can all judge better ideas versus worse ideas. I deeply believe in that core principle (of the First Amendment).”
“Misinformation” is another issue troubling Obama, where he seems somewhat skeptical about the government’s ability to regulate the field (obviously – to his political slant).
But the former president has ideas about how it might be done: “We need to think about different platforms and different business models.”
Furthermore – “It may be that I’m perfectly happy to have AI mediate how I buy jeans online. That could be very efficient. I’m perfectly happy with it. So if it’s a shopping app or thread, fine.”
But – what if it’s about speech, or as he put it, “marketplace of ideas”?
There, Obama would like to see regulation that would “broaden” people’s perspectives. Let his audience be the judge of the direction this (political) “broadening” would be taking, and at the expense of what.
The interview came after sitting US president, Joe Biden, signed what is described as “a sweeping executive order about AI.”
Obama has not previously been known as an expert on these matters (apparently, his “expertise” stems from being a prominent victim of deepfakes), but now he has a lot to say about “AI”. Mostly, how those tech companies at the forefront should “regulate” matters pertaining to this technology.
On this front, one of the key messages Obama was trying to push during the podcast is to “recruit” actual tech and “AI” experts into a segment of the US Digital Service that was launched during his time in office. In this context, he urged professionals to “sign up” at ai.gov and work “for the common good.”
Featured Video
9/11 In Perspective
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Still No End in Sight of the Murder and Mayhem Wrought by the 9/11 Culprits
By Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | July 17, 2016
The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – Fourth part of the series titled “9/11 and the Zionist Question”
Back in 2006 all but a prescient few, such as Christopher Bollyn, perceived it as premature to try to identify and bring to justice the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 crimes. There was still some residue of confidence that responsible officials in government, law enforcement, media and the universities could and would respond in good faith to multiple revelations that great frauds had occurred in interpreting 9/11 for the public.
Accordingly, the main methodology of public intellectuals like Dr. Kevin Barrett or, for instance, Professors David Ray Griffin, Steven E. Jones, Peter Dale Scott, Graeme MacQueen, John McMurtry, Michael Keefer, Richard B. Lee, A.K. Dewdney, Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, and Michel Chossudovsky, was to marshal evidence demonstrating that the official narrative of 9/11 could not be true.
The marshaling of evidence was spurred on by observations coming from government insiders like Eckehardt Wertherbach, a former head of Germany’s intelligence service. In a meeting in Germany with Christopher Bollyn and Dr. Andreas von Bülow, Wertherbach pointed out that, “an attack of this magnitude and precision would have required years of planning. Such a sophisticated operation would require the fixed frame of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a loose group like the one led by the student Mohammed Atta in Hamburg.”
Andreas von Bülow was a German parliamentarian and Defense Ministry official. He confirmed this assessment in his book on the CIA and 9/11. In the text von Bülow remarked that the execution of the 9/11 plan “would have been unthinkable without backing from secret apparatuses of state and industry.” The author spoke of the “invented story of 19 Muslims working with Osama bin Laden in order the hide the truth” of the real perpetrators’ identity. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Kaja Kallas: an uncomfortable figure useful to the EU’s Russophobic purposes
- German state blacklists right-wing party for first time
- Romania’s stolen elections were only the start: Inside the EU’s war on democracy
- Hawaii bills would allow gov’t to quarantine people, enter property without permission, seize firearms, and suspend laws
- Epstein files may contain ‘crimes against humanity’ – UN
- UK Government Plans to Use Delegated Powers to Undermine Encryption and Expand Online Surveillance
- Epstein Files Expose Israeli Occupation of America
- The Mandelson Molecule: Exposing the Architecture of Cross-Border Political Suppression
- The U.S. Sanctions Cuban Journalist For Reporting On The U.S. Blockade
- Israeli firms transform cars into intelligence devices: Reports
- If Americans Knew
- Why won’t Trump’s “Board of Peace” bring peace? – Not a ceasefire Day 131
- Help end the injustice against Shadi
- Israel’s Favorite American President
- Israel’s “Yellow Line” Is a Death Trap for Palestinians. We Drove Into It.
- Why Israel’s expanding occupation in Syria presents a critical legal test
- Gaza is not a natural disaster. It is the victim of genocide enabled by global inaction
- Netanyahu’s plan to “end” US aid to Israel is to give even more money under a different name
- Israel ceased firing on Gaza for just 15 days of the “ceasefire” – Not a ceasefire Day 130
- In Gaza, “rats run over our faces” – Not a ceasefire Day 129
- Israel-backed border guards, GHF-linked aid – Not a ceasefire Day 128
- No Tricks Zone
- Coal Power Back In Trend As Globe Tries To Keep Pace With Growing Demand For Power
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
Aletho News 