Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israel’s War on Truth-Telling Media and Journalists

By Stephen Lendman | May 16, 2021

Time and again, truth-telling journalism as it should be is a casualty of all things war and related violence.

Big Lies, mass deception, and censorship are weapons of war by other means — in support of the official falsified narrative.

In their book titled “Guardians of Power,” David Edwards and David Cromwell explained why today’s media are in crisis — free and open societies at risk.

It’s because press prostitution substitutes fiction for fact — notably in the US, other Western countries and Israel.

Their state-approved sanitized reports stick exclusively to the official falsified narrative in support of wealth, power and privilege over full and accurate reporting.

In the US especially, news consumers are fed a daily diet of managed news misinformation, disinformation, junk food news and infotainment — at all times.

Notably in times of war, their reports regurgitate state-supplied talking points.

Whatever diverges from the official falsified narrative is filtered out and suppressed.

Adopted unanimously by Security Council members in December 2006, SC Res. 1738 affirms protection for civilians and journalists in war theaters — calling their safety and security “urgent and important.”

Condemning intentional attacks on fourth estate members, the resolution demands accountability for responsible parties.

At all times, especially at times of war and under occupation, civilians are protected persons. So are journalists — under international law.

Throughout at least most of its history, Israel waged war on truth-telling Palestinian journalists.

They’re at risk of arrest, prosecution, imprisonment, and/or assassination.

According to the Committee to Support Palestinian Journalists, “(t)he Israeli occupation tries to muzzle the Palestinian journalists’ mouths and prevent them from unmasking its barbaric practices in the occupied Palestinian territories to the international media.”

Palestinian journalists covering Israeli violence against legitimate protesters risk serious injury or death.

Anyone wearing a flak jacket labeled press is vulnerable, their unprotected areas vulnerable to Israeli sniper attacks by live fire — including use of exploding dum dum bullets able to leave fist-sized existing wounds in individuals struck.

They’re designed to inflict disabling damage to internal organs or death — even though banned by the 1899 Hague Convention.

Since IDF terror-bombing and shelling of Gaza began on May 10, silencing truth-telling media has been a prioritized Netanyahu regime aim.

The same objective is sought in all Israeli preemptive wars, as well as at all other times on whatever conflicts with official falsified Israeli talking points.

On May 15 in Gaza, Israeli terror-bombing turned the 11-story Al-Jalaa building to smoldering rubble — its occupants given one hour to vacate the premises.

It’s unknown so far if some remained inside and perished.

Along with residences of Gazan families, the building housed international media offices.

According to DW News, AP News, AFP, Al Jazeera, other international media operations, and local Palestinian news agencies had offices in the building.

The IDF defied reality by falsely claiming that the building included Hamas “military assets (sic),” adding:

“(O)ffices of civilian media outlets (were) use(d) (by Hamas) as human shields (sic).”

According to AP News, the Netanyahu regime and IDF “did not provide evidence for the claim” — because there is none.

On its Saturday newscast, senior Al Jazeera (AJ) political analyst Marwan Bishara minced no words in debunking the thinly veiled IDF Big Lie.

Gaza-based AJ journalist Al Kahlout said the following in response to Israel’s destruction of the Al-Jalaa building with three missiles:

“(N)o one can understand the feeling of the people whose homes have been destroyed by such kind of air attacks,” adding:

“It’s really difficult to wake up one day and then you realize that your office is not there with all the career experiences, memories that you’ve had.”

Separately on Saturday, IDF terror-bombing destroyed a Gaza City area refugee camp three-story residence, massacring eight children and two women.

The above buildings had no military significance. Israel defied reality by claiming otherwise.

In response to its destruction of Gaza’s Al Jalaa building, AP News president and CEO Gary Pruitt said the following:

“The world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened today.”

“We are shocked and horrified that the Israeli military would target and destroy the building housing AP’s bureau and other news organizations in Gaza.”

“This is an incredibly disturbing development. We narrowly avoided a terrible loss of life.”

Separately, AP reported:

“For 15 years, the AP’s top-floor office and roof terrace were a prime location for covering Israel’s conflicts with Gaza.”

Now it’s gone, along with scores of massacred Gazans, including women and children.

NY-based Committee to Protect Journalists’ executive director Joel Simon said the following:

“This latest attack on a building long known by Israel to house international media raises the specter that the IDF is deliberately targeting media facilities in order to disrupt coverage of the human suffering in Gaza.”

Indeed so!!

Silencing coverage of its high crimes of war, against humanity, and other human rights abuses is longstanding Israeli policy — in flagrant breach of international law.

On May 10, the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA) reported the following:

It “condemn(ed) escalating attacks of the occupation forces against journalists and media workers in Palestine…”

MADA noted what’s going on in “occupied…Jerusalem…aim(s) (to) block the transmission of the violations to the world.”

“This was accompanied by widespread violations of freedom of expression committed by social media companies to serve the goal of the occupation state by obscuring the attacks implemented by its soldiers and settlers.”

In early May alone, “Israeli attacks against journalists during their field coverage of events, as the occupation army targeted a number of journalists while they were” reporting on what’s going on.

At least “10 (Palestinian) journalists” were targeted and “injured.”

“(I)mpunity of the Israeli occupation forces over the years for their almost daily crimes and violations of media freedoms in Palestine, including the killing of more than 40 journalists during the past two decades, is what encourage them to continue committing more crimes and violations, which requires serious action to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes, as the only way to reduce it.”

Facebook, Twitter, and other “social media companies… deliberately blocked and suspended the accounts of many Palestinian citizens, including many journalists…”

MADA called their action “a severe violation against freedom of expression (in cahoots with) the occupation state (by) blocking facts and suppressing media freedoms and freedom of expression.”

At the same time, they freely allow hostile-to-truth-telling Western and Israeli propaganda on their “platforms.”

May 16, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Facebook deletes “I trust my immune system” profile photo frames under “misinformation” policy

By Christina Maas | Reclaim the Net | May 16, 2021

Facebook has a lengthy policy on what people are allowed to talk about in relation to COVID vaccines. However, as of the end of last week, the platform continued to host “pro-immune system” profile picture frames until it was contacted by CNBC News.

An analysis by CNBC News found out that there are dozens of profile picture frames promoting pro-immune system opinions. Some are using statements such as “I TRUST MY IMMUNE SYSTEM! #NOTASHOT.” Others didn’t mention the word vaccine, such as “I HAVE AN IMMUNE SYSTEM! #MedicalFreedom.”

Facebook has now deleted all of these frames.

A spokesperson for Facebook told CNBC that such frames did actually violate its policies, adding that the platform would remove frames with vaccine skeptic messages. In its policy on anti-vaccine misinformation, the platform prohibits, “promoting alternative treatments or natural immunity, celebrating those who refuse vaccination, and encouraging vaccine refusals without citing medical rationales or guidance,” and “claims that something other than COVID-19 vaccine can vaccinate you against “COVID-19.”

The spokesperson also noted that pro-vaccine frames are allowed and are trending on the platform.

“In countries where vaccines are available to most of the population, like the US and the UK, we ramped up our efforts to show people when their friends and neighbors share their support for vaccines through profile frames and stickers,” Facebook wrote in a blog post earlier this week.

May 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Biden revokes Trump’s executive order against Big Tech censorship

By Didi Rancovic | Reclaim the Net | May 15, 2021

Four of President Donald Trump’s executive orders have been quietly reversed by the new Biden administration on Friday.

The news was announced by the White House on late Friday and those media outlets who attempted to get any further comment and clarification were out of luck at the time, as the White House remained silent.

One of the four executive orders the former president had signed was called, Preventing Online Censorship.

The executive order came along – and perhaps “prophetically” – before the unprecedented wave of online censorship in the wake of the November 2020 US elections – and the political and physical turmoil during the long weeks the US was trying to count that vote, that culminated in the Capitol Hill protests in early January – but perhaps far more reaching decision by Twitter to ban the account of a sitting president.

The order the Biden administration has now annulled originates in May 2020, when several of Trump’s tweets got labeled as “misleading.”

The executive order at the time accused Twitter of “now” selectively slapping warning labels (meant to undermine authenticity, and ease of access to these tweets) as a reflection of the social media company’s own political bias.

The executive order also mentioned Twitter at the same time turning a blind eye to perpetrators of what many at this time already saw as a Russian collusion hoax, like Adam Schiff. His tweets never got flagged for political bias, the order read.

The order meant that the commerce secretary was to submit a petition to the Federal Communications Commission over social media companies’ practices, while the U.S. attorney general was asked to consider enforcing anti-censorship states laws.

According to the EFF, Biden’s move to revoke the order of his predecessor on this issue came after a letter from Rock The Vote, Voto Latino, Common Cause, Free Press, Decoding Democracy, and the Center for Democracy & Technology, who said the order was “a drastic assault on free speech designed to punish online platforms that fact-checked President Trump.”

These organizations also filed lawsuits against the Trump executive order – a case that now seems to be resolved with the Biden administration’s move.

May 15, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Israel ‘deliberately targeting’ Palestinian journalists, media body says

MEMO | May 14, 2021

Israeli occupation forces “deliberately targeted Palestinian journalists who cover attacks and violations against Jerusalem and worshipers in the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque”, the Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ) has warned.

At least 10 journalists, two of whom were women, were injured during the incidents.

In a statement the CFWIJ said this it “is utterly dismayed by the deliberate and vicious attacks against journalists.”

During the past few days, many violations were committed against the press, with them being prevented from covering events in the occupied city of Jerusalem and the Sheikh Jarrah area.

Palestine reporter Liwa Abu Armila suffered from tear gas inhalation while following the raids while journalist Fatima Al-Bakri was also physically assaulted by the Israeli occupation forces.

On 8 May occupation forces attacked journalists by spraying skunk water at them to damage their equipment, reporter Maysa Abu Ghazaleh was among them.

The CFWIJ continued: “We applaud the brave journalists who are covering the incidents in the field despite the large scale of the Israeli attacks. However, we demand the Israel state to end these devastating attacks against Palestinians. Journalists must report in a free and safe environment and the security forces must respond to provide it to them.”

May 14, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Facebook deletes Ohio group that supports legal exemptions to COVID vaccine mandates

By Tom Parker | Reclaim the Net | May 13, 2021

The Facebook group for Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom (OAMF), a non-profit that supports legislation that would give people exemptions to vaccine mandates, has been banned from Facebook.

The group had 40,000 members and its President, Stephanie Stock said that Facebook banned the group for sharing mainstream news articles.

OAMF describes itself as an advocate for “your right to choose or refuse any medical treatment or procedure.”

Recently, OAMF has been supporting House Bill 248, the Vaccine Choice & Anti-Discrimination Act. The bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Jennifer Gross, describes it as “legislation that protects individuals who choose not to be vaccinated from discrimination due to vaccine status.”

The removal of this group follows Facebook deleting a 120,000-member group where people shared stories of alleged adverse vaccine reactions last month.

Facebook’s current rules prohibit a wide range of vaccine-related posts including posts claiming vaccines are ineffective, posts claiming vaccines cause blood clots, and posts claiming vaccines change people’s DNA (something Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told his staff during an internal July 2020 meeting).

Facebook also labels any posts discussing the vaccine with “credible information about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines from the World Health Organization.”

The tech giant’s increased censorship and editorialization of posts about vaccines follows pressure from Democratic Party Senators and State Attorneys General who have pushed the company to “address” prominent vaccine skeptics and kill vaccine skepticism.

Before this Facebook censorship, OAMF had its video of legislative testimony before the Ohio senate removed by YouTube in February. The video featured testimony in support of a bill that would allow state lawmakers to vote against the governor’s coronavirus lockdowns but was removed by YouTube for violating its “coronavirus misinformation” policies.

May 13, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Canadian Doctors Are Being Censored

By Ethan Yang | AIER | May 13, 2021

On April 30th, 2021 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put out a highly controversial statement regarding what it considers to be Covid misinformation. The CPSO is a regional regulatory body empowered by statutory law to exercise licensing and disciplinary authority over the practice of medicine in Ontario. Think of it as the equivalent of a State Bar Association for American lawyers except for Canadian doctors. The statement from the CPSO goes as follows,

The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.

The CPSO justifies its statement with the following rationale,

“There have been isolated incidents of physicians using social media to spread blatant misinformation and undermine public health measures meant to protect all of us.”

This development is nothing short of horrifying. Although there are certainly concerns about the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories in the age of Covid-19, this sort of broad censorship of speech from practicing medical professionals is not only an ethical sham but anti-science. The practice of science is premised on the rigorous application of the scientific method which among other things requires falsifiability and debate. The move to silence doctors also flies in the face of liberal democracy – something that has been deteriorating around the world as both the public and private sector move to silence dissent.

The fact that the CPSO, a licensing body wielding the power of the state, has taken such an aggressive move to silence dissent even on lockdown policies is especially disturbing given that they are preventing doctors from voicing their expertise on such important matters. The Toronto Sun comments on the incident by writing,

“Right now, restrictions are severe in Canada. The public health orders concerning, for example, the closure of basketball courts and golf courses in Ontario have been widely condemned by many physicians.

Why should physicians not speak out against restrictions that they feel are harmful to the health of their patients?

“Despite undeniable suffering due to lockdowns, the CPSO wants Ontario doctors to stay quiet,” wrote Dr. Shawn Whatley, a former president of the Ontario Medical Association, in a guest column in the Sun.”

It Doesn’t Stop In Ontario

One may think that the policy adopted by the CPSO may be an extreme aberration unique to Ontario. According to the Toronto Star this practice is seeing more adoption, not less. It writes,

“Doctors in British Columbia are being warned they could face investigation or penalties from their regulatory body if they contradict public health orders or guidance about COVID-19.

The warning is contained in a joint statement from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. and the First Nations Health Authority.”

One doesn’t even need to have a strong opinion on this matter to understand that censoring doctors and mandating conformity to state policy is not only immoral but a direct attack on scientific freedom.

The Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth

In response to the CPSO’s order, there has rightly been pushback from the Canadian medical community in the form of the Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth. The Declaration’s website features a petition that has been signed by over 4,700 physicians and concerned citizens at the time of this writing.

The declaration lays out three basic complaints with the CPSO’s order.

  1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself:
  2. Violation of our Pledge to use Evidence-Based Medicine for our patients:
  3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent

More elaboration and information can be found on the Declaration’s website.

Closing Thoughts

To paraphrase the great human rights activist and Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, what it meant to be a loyal Soviet citizen was to say what you’re supposed to say, to read what you’re permitted to read, and to vote the way you’re supposed to vote, and to know it was all a lie.

It doesn’t take a background in medicine to know that the censorship of medical professionals during a pandemic is the last thing that should be happening. There is no better time for rigorous debate on the efficacy of public health measures than now with unprecedented and unproven lockdown policies being forced on populations worldwide.

Some may say that we can trust that freedom of speech will be restored and that censorship is necessary to expedite the end of the pandemic. This is abundantly flawed for two reasons. The first being the idea that Canadian doctors must conform to the vision of the state and not question it. This is not only a violation of their duty as medical practitioners and scientists but deeply crippling to a sound public health response. Finally, this move is fundamentally opposed to the values of liberal democracy which have now been jeopardized on a global scale. With the lights of an enlightened and modern civilization going out across the world, it would be fair to ask, will they ever be turned back on in our lifetime?

Ethan Yang joined AIER in 2020 as an Editorial Assistant and is a graduate of Trinity College. He received a BA in Political Science alongside a minor in Legal Studies and Formal Organizations.

He currently serves as Local Coordinator at Students for Liberty and the Director of the Mark Twain Center for the Study of Human Freedom at Trinity College.

May 13, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Government’s ‘Online Safety’ Bill Will Limit Free Speech, Lead To Massive ‘State-backed Censorship’ Warn Watchdogs

“A frightening and historic attack on freedom of speech”

By Steve Watson | Summit News | May 13, 2021

Free speech activists in the UK have warned that new government legislation aimed at social media companies is set to decimate free speech and bring in ‘state-backed censorship’ on an unprecedented scale.

The ‘Online Safety’ Bill is being introduced with the justification of forcing big tech to be more accountable for ‘harmful’ content on their websites.

However, activists have noted that it will be used to remove any opinions and content that big tech or the state do not agree with, and could lead to more publishers being permanently banned from platforms.

The legislation gives the government Office of Communications the power to issue fines of up to £18million or 10 per cent of their annual global turnover if that is higher, and to completely block access to platforms.

Privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch has labelled the legislation “state-backed censorship and monitoring on a scale never seen before in a liberal democracy.”

Another activist group. The Free Speech Union noted that the draft legislation effectively brings media created content on social networks “within scope of a state regulator.”

Another group, The Adam Smith Institute labelled the move “a frightening and historic attack on freedom of speech.”

“The Government should not have the power to instruct private firms to remove legal speech in a free society,” commented Matthew Lesh of the Institute.

‘The scope of these proposals is practically limitless, encompassing everything from ‘trolling’ to ‘fraud’ and ‘misinformation’,” he added.

Lesh further warned that “The vagueness of the legislation means there will be nothing to stop Ofcom and a future government including any additional measures in future.”

Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group also weighed in, urging that ‘Treating online speech as inherently dangerous and demanding that risks are eliminated under the threat of massive fines is only going to end up in over-reaction and content removal.”

The legislation is set to be reviewed by a joint committee of MPs, and then brought to Parliament.

The move is yet another example of government using the broad definition of ‘hate speech’ to put into place tools that can be used to silence dissent or opinions it does not want in the public realm.

The legislation was drafted and announced following a sustained campaign involving celebrities and sports personalities who demanded that big tech companies should be held more accountable for instances of racism and bullying on its platforms.

May 13, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Emails show US Justice Dept Threatened MIT researchers who refuted voter fraud claims in Bolivian election

RT | May 11, 2021

An email exchange in which a US Justice Department (DOJ) lawyer threatens to subpoena academics who refuted voter fraud allegations in Bolivia’s 2019 presidential election has been leaked, fueling speculation of US involvement.

Between October 2020 and January 2021, Angela George – a trial attorney at the DOJ’s Office of International Affairs – repeatedly mailed a group of analysts at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to obtain their research – eventually threatening to compel them to do so, according to an email chain released by The Intercept news outlet.

In their study for the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), MIT analysts Jack Williams and John Curiel refuted allegations of election-rigging by incumbent Bolivian President Evo Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party.

After Morales was voted back into power for a fourth term in the October 2019 election, opposition parties immediately leveled charges of voter fraud – which were amplified by an election audit conducted by the influential Washington-based regional cooperation body Organization of American States (OAS).

The Trump administration’s top diplomat for Latin America, Michael Kozak, weighed in and promised to “hold accountable anyone who undermines Bolivia’s democratic institutions.” After three weeks of unrest, the opposition installed Jeanine Áñez as president, in a coup.

The CEPR study, whose findings were published in February 2020, conducted a statistical analysis of the data and did not find “quantitative evidence” of irregularities as “claimed by the OAS” – and as had been reported by several major US publications, including the New York Times.

Following more protests and unrest, the Áñez government was forced to hold a new election, held on October 18, 2020. The first mail from Angela George came on October 15, just three days before the polls. In the initial email, the DOJ lawyer said the study data had been “formally requested” by the Bolivian government for a “criminal investigation” it had opened.

When in subsequent emails, Williams responded that the research had drawn on public information, George wrote, “I am simply trying to find out if the report… includes your research and is an authentic copy of the report that was produced” before raising the prospect of “a subpoena being served on you and the [MIT Election] lab” should it be required.

Speaking to The Intercept on condition of anonymity, a source familiar with the investigation said the “Justice Department inquiry frightened election researchers in the academic community and may have had a chilling effect on subsequent research.”

According to a former DOJ trial attorney who has also worked at the Department’s Office of International Affairs (OIA), the email exchange was “unusual.” That person, who also requested anonymity, noted that it signaled this was not a regular criminal investigation.

“This particular request is not your run-of-the-mill criminal investigation, so you can be fairly sure that it received very high-level exposure,” they said.

“Generally, OIA would enlist the FBI or other investigative agency to execute an incoming MLA (Mutual Legal Assistance) request such as a voluntary witness interview or inquiry like this one. It’s unusual for an OIA attorney to handle it,” the former trial attorney told the outlet.

A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment about the email exchanges, according to The Intercept.

Although Morales was in exile during the 2020 election, MAS won in a landslide. He has since returned. Áñez, who had dropped out of contention a month before the new election, is facing terrorism, sedition, and conspiracy charges.

May 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

DECLARATION OF CANADIAN PHYSICIANS FOR SCIENCE AND TRUTH

The Declaration

We are a broad and diverse group of Canadian physicians from across Canada who are sending out this urgent declaration to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of our various Provinces and Territories and to the Public at large, whom we serve.

On April 30, 2021, Ontario’s physician licensing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), issued a statement forbidding physicians from questioning or debating any or all of the official measures imposed in response to COVID-19. 1

The CPSO then went on to threaten physicians with punishment – investigations and disciplinary action.

We regard this recent statement of the CPSO to be unethical, anti-science and deeply disturbing.

As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients.

When we became physicians, we pledged to put our patients first and that our ethical and professional duty is always first toward our patients. The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients in the following ways:

1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself:  The CPSO is ordering physicians to put aside the scientific method and to not debate the processes and conclusions of science.

We physicians know and continue to believe that throughout history, opposing views, vigorous debate and openness to new ideas have been the bedrock of scientific progress.  Any major advance in science has been arrived at by practitioners vigorously questioning “official” narratives and following a different path in the pursuit of truth.

2. Violation of our Pledge to use Evidence-Based Medicine for our patients:  By ordering us not to debate and not to question, the CPSO is also asking us to violate our pledge to our patients that we will always seek the best, evidence-based scientific methods for them and advocate vigorously on their behalf.

The CPSO statement orders physicians for example, not to discuss or communicate with the public about “lockdown” measures. Lockdown measures are the subject of lively debate by world-renown and widely respected experts and there are widely divergent views on this subject. The explicitly anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration – https://gbdeclaration.org – was written by experts from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford Universities and more than 40,000 physicians from all over the world have signed this declaration. Several international experts including Martin Kuldorf (Harvard), David Katz (Yale), Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) and Sunetra Gupta (Oxford) continue to strongly oppose lockdowns.

The CPSO is ordering physicians to express only pro-lockdown views, or else face investigation and discipline. This tyrannical, anti-science CPSO directive is regarded by thousands of Canadian physicians and scientists as unsupported by science and as violating the first duty of care to our patients.

3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent:  The CPSO is also ordering physicians to violate the sacred duty of informed consent – which is the process by which the patient/public is fully informed of the risks, benefits and any alternatives to the treatment or intervention, before consent is given.

The Nuremberg Code, drafted in the aftermath of the atrocities perpetrated within the Nazi concentration camps – where horrific medical experiments were performed on inmates without consent – expressly forbids the imposition of any kind of intervention without informed consent.

In the case of the lockdown intervention for example, physicians have a fiduciary duty to point out to the public that lockdowns impose their own costs on society, including in greatly increased depression and suicide rates, delayed investigation and treatment of cancer (including delayed surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy), ballooning surgical waiting lists (with attendant greatly increased patient suffering) and increased rates of child and domestic abuse.

We physicians believe that with the CPSO statement of 30 April 2021, a watershed moment in the assault on free speech and scientific inquiry has been reached.

By ordering physicians to be silent and follow only one narrative, or else face discipline and censure, the CPSO is asking us to violate our conscience, our professional ethics, the Nuremberg code and the scientific pursuit of truth.

We will never comply and will always put our patients first.

The CPSO must immediately withdraw and rescind its statement of 30 April 2021.

We also give notice to other Canadian and international licensing authorities for physicians and allied professions that the stifling of scientific inquiry and any order to violate our conscience and professional pledge to our patients, itself may constitute a crime against humanity.

1 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Statement on Public Health Misinformation (4/30/21). https://twitter.com/cpso_ca/status/1388211577770348544

The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.

 

Signatures

  • Anne Shannon
  • Andrea Roy
  • Adam Salt
  • Alexandre Guay
  • Andrea Zaretsky
  • Andrew Mahon
  • annkwist@rogers.com Kwist
  • Antonio Coffa
  • Deno Gettas
  • Beata G
  • Bernard de Souza
  • Beth Lindhorst
  • Karen Mackey
  • Bruce McKay
  • Ron Bublitz
  • Carla Dancey
  • Deb Mair
  • ROBERT PAQUETTE
  • Christine Pohanka
  • Cindy Create
  • Claire Gosselin
  • Corinne Mackenzie
  • Barbara & David Schmidt
  • Judith Robinson
  • Donna Cuomo
  • Deborah Kay
  • Julia McLaren
  • Dwayne Vann
  • Emma Sattar
  • Dave Thompson
  • Elizabeth Romanowska-Konsik
  • Darlene Elias
  • Elizabeth Balcar
  • Erin Beckman
  • Richard Caviedes
  • Chris Filby
  • Pat Brown
  • Rachel Vlietstra
  • Greg Schmalz
  • Gerard Lamontagne
  • Freya Godard
  • Ken Roberson
  • Blaine Goodine
  • Grazyna Sanchez
  • Mary Hale
  • Anja Reich
  • Silvia engels
  • Helke Ferrie
  • Vicki Samson
  • Laura Peterson
  • Michelle Greenwell
  • Jackie Beninato
  • Jake Hoheisel
  • Jan Fiss
  • Jeff Graham
  • Jennifer LONERGAN
  • Judy Symington
  • Janine Jalbert
  • Jordyn Kaye
  • Jeremy McKee
  • Julie Montpetit
  • Kathleen Perry
  • Kathy Braun
  • Katia Rodrigues
  • Keith Baxter
  • Cheryl Leite
  • Larissa Flanagan
  • Laurie Fetherstonhaugh
  • Lauren Annez
  • Sharon Leonard
  • Lorraine Struyk
  • larry hachey
  • Linda Winger
  • Luciano Perna
  • Madeleine Menard
  • Marissa Secord
  • Marlena Murray
  • Marnee Stern
  • Lori McKay
  • Michael Germain
  • Michele Mihalik
  • Michelle Losier
  • Marlee Moore
  • Nancy Chown
  • Nikki Pulla
  • Norma Ford
  • Nicoline Lentze
  • Nigel Bell
  • Melodie VanderWal
  • Colleen Roberts
  • Pamela Velos
  • Rick Hayter
  • Rochagné Kilian
  • Dale & Roeli Lutz
  • ronald beaulieu
  • Sarah MacInnis
  • Sarah Pollard
  • Sara Pahlevan
  • Sabina SARGEANT
  • Stephanie Cheung
  • Sebastian Rozdzynski
  • Sherry Lee
  • Jacinthe Phillips
  • Sophie Hawkins
  • Steve Foget
  • Sue Timmermans
  • sydney felker
  • Taron Puri
  • Christine Simpson
  • Tibor Finesz
  • Lara Doucette
  • Thomas J Tassé
  • Thomas Russell
  • Erica Tratch
  • Summer Hanes
  • Uwe Grunert
  • Valerie Debicki
  • Vladikir Gagachev
  • Verna Hutchinson
  • Roger Baird

See all signatures

Sign it!

2,429 people have already signed this declaration!

May 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Who needs a totalitarian state when zealous, woke workers ensure that books with ‘invalid opinions’ never get an airing?

By Frank Furedi | RT | May 10, 2021

The publishing industry is encouraging grass roots censorship and increasingly giving in to employees who demand that certain views should never be able to be expressed – especially those involving trans issues.

It looks like publishing is fast becoming a career choice for ambitious would-be censors. The most aspiring and aggressive wing of the grass-roots censorship movement is the lobby policing publications dealing with trans-related issues. Recently a group of individuals from across the publishing industry associated with this lobby wrote a letter to The Bookseller demanding the censoring of books that it deems unfavourable to its cause.

The main point of the letter is to claim that trans culture cannot be a subject of debate and that publishers should prevent opinions that run counter to it from being published. It states:

“Transphobia is still perfectly acceptable in the British book industry. Our industry excuses it, says that to view transgender individuals as having less than full human rights is OK and an opinion as valid as others. Our industry is still very comfortable about giving this form of prejudice a powerful platform. We need to step away from the paradigm that all opinions are equally valid.”

The demand to reject the paradigm that all opinions are valid is a roundabout way of saying that ‘invalid’ opinions can be legitimately censored and authors who hold such views should be cancelled and silenced.

Calls for censorship by freelance inquisitors working in publishing have also been busy in the United States. Employees at Simon & Schuster recently filed a petition insisting that the publisher sever its ties with writers associated with the Trump administration. The petition, signed by 216 employees, gained the support of over 3,500 external supporters, including well-known black writers such as the two-time winner of the National Book Award for Fiction, Jesmyn Ward.

When well-known writers join the queue of enthusiastic censors, it becomes evident that American literary culture is in trouble.

One of the targets of the Simon & Schuster inquisitors is a two-book deal that the company signed with former Vice-President Mike Pence. Since they believe that Pence’s opinions are not as valid as theirs, shutting down one of the leading voices of the Republican Party is a public service to society.

One of the most disturbing features of the inquisitorial movement in the publishing industry is the casual manner with which it seeks to corrupt the ideals of tolerance and free speech.

It is worth noting that the letter sent to The Bookseller is titled ‘The Paradox of Tolerance’. Since it rejects tolerance for views with which it disagrees – it states, “it is clearly not appropriate to say simply ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion’” – it should be titled ‘The Case for Intolerance’!

The hypocrisy of the supporters of censorship in publishing was highlighted in June 2020, by a group called Pride in Publishing. It wrote a circular, ‘Let’s clarify what free speech is and is not: An open letter to the industry from Pride in Publishing’. The aim of this letter was to support employees at Hachette Children’s Books who objected to working on JK Rowling’s latest book. Rowling – the author of the Harry Potter series – had in these employees’ opinion committed the unpardonable sin of refusing to accept the definition of sex and gender promoted by trans activists.

The letter stated: “Let’s clarify what free speech is and is not. Free speech does not entitle an author to a publishing contract. But it does protect the right of a worker to raise the alarm when they’re asked to participate in something that can cause them or someone else harm or trauma. Transphobic authors are not a protected group. Trans and non-binary people are.”

In British law, those using words that express hostility towards so-called protected groups with protected characteristics – such as race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender status and disability – can be charged with a hate crime. The implication of Pride in Publishing’s statement is that the right to exercise free speech is qualified in circumstances when it is directed at a protected group. This letter also highlights what has become one of the most distinctive features of 21st century linguistic policing – the diseasing of free speech.

In effect, the implication of the Pride in Publishing statement is that Rowling’s book represents a threat to the safety and mental health of the trans and non-binary people working at Hachette. It states that “employees should never have to work on content which is detrimental to their mental health or which causes them unnecessary turmoil.” This sentiment echoes the widely held view which insists that verbal and published communications are a potential hazard to people’s well-being and therefore need to be regulated to protect certain groups from offense, psychological trauma, and mental health problems.

This medicalisation of free speech, leading to its diseasing, has become one of the most effective arguments used for undermining freedom of expression.

Activists have, in effect, reinforced their call for censorship by claiming that the publication of invalid opinions by authors who offend them causes them psychological distress and trauma.

The publishing industry has recognised that its new generation of employees do not expect to work with material that upsets them. David Shelley, the CEO of Hachette, and Clare Alexander, a literary agent, recently told a Lords Committee that new recruits into the publishing industry must be warned that they may have to work on books by people they don’t agree with!

That publishers need to warn employees that they may have to work with authors whose views they dislike highlights the precarious position of free expression and tolerance in this industry.

Once upon a time, publishers were worried about the threat posed by state censorship and feared provoking the wrath of authoritarian censors from above. Today the publishing industry has become complicit in acquiescing to cancel culture, and the pressure to police what the public gets to read comes from below, from a new generation of intolerant employees.

Who needs a totalitarian state when zealous, fragile, and woke workers are determined to ensure that ‘invalid opinions’ never get an airing?

Frank Furedi is an author and social commentator. He is an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent in Canterbury. Author of How Fear Works: The Culture of Fear in the 21st Century.

May 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The American Cyber Stasi Will Suppress All Digital Dissent In Biden’s Dystopia

By Andrew Korybko | One World | May 7, 2021

The dystopian hellhole that I predicted would become a fait accompli following Joe Biden’s confirmation as President by the Electoral College is quickly becoming a reality after CNN’s recent report that the US’ security services are considering contracting the services of so-called “researchers” as a legal workaround for spying on average Americans. According to the outlet, these ostensibly independent contractors would be charged with infiltrating the social media circles of white supremacists and other supposedly terrorist-inclined domestic forces within the country. The report claims that the intent is to “help provide a broad picture of who was perpetuating the ‘narratives’ of concern”, after which “the FBI could theoretically use that pool of information to focus on specific individuals if there is enough evidence of a potential crime to legally do so”.

In other words, the US’ security services essentially want to establish a “Cyber Stasi” of “fellow” citizens who spy on one another and produce purported “evidence” of “potential crimes” for “justifying” the FBI’s “legal” investigations. CNN quoted an unnamed senior intelligence official who asked, “What do you do about ideology that’s leading to violence? Do you have to wait until it leads to violence?”, thereby hinting that this initiative might likely be exploited to stop so-called “pre-crime”, or crimes before they occur. Put another way, even those average Americans who practice their constitutionally enshrined right to the freedom of speech to peacefully dissent against the Democrats’ consolidation of their de facto one-party rule of the country might find themselves targeted by the security services depending on how the contracted “researchers” spin their words.

It should be remembered that even Americans’ constitutionally enshrined right to the freedom of assembly is nowadays under scrutiny depending on the stated reason behind their planned peaceful protests if they dare to propose gathering in opposition to last year’s alleged voter fraud for example. The events of 6 January were exploited as a game-changer by the security services in order to restrict Americans’ freedoms. It’s neither here nor there whether one sincerely believes that the election was stolen since the purpose in pointing these double standards out is to prove that average Americans are being politically discriminated against with the implied threat of legal intimidation when it comes to exercising their constitutional rights about “politically incorrect” issues of concern to them.

Although the reported purpose of the “Cyber Stasi” is to preemptively thwart emerging domestic terrorist plots, it can’t be discounted that the combination of political Russophobia and “mission creep” will combine to create additional objectives such as stopping the spread of so-called “Russian disinformation” throughout society. That phrase is actually just a euphemism for “politically incorrect” facts and interpretations thereof that contradict the Democrats’ official narrative of events, being intentionally vague enough to function as an umbrella under which to cover practically every alternative understanding possible. With this in mind, those average Americans who dare to share something “politically incorrect” – even in private chats amidst the presence of “deep state” infiltrators (“researchers” employed as “Cyber Stasi”) – might be targeted by the FBI.

The end effect is that the US’ security services might succeed in suppressing most expressions of digital dissent in the coming future. They’re inspired to do so by the ruling administration which wants to impose a syncretic system of economic leftism and social fascism onto the country. It’s not “communist” in the sense that the economic vision is more akin to state capitalism than traditional Marxism, but the social impact will certainly mirror that of East Germany during its darkest days of Stasi rule, though that’s precisely why many critics casually describe it as “communist” despite that not being economically correct (at least not yet). The US’ “researcher”-contracted “Cyber Stasi” will have a chilling effect how Americans interact with one another from here on out, all in order for Biden’s dystopian hellhole to avoid the fate of its predecessor, East Germany.

May 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Facebook Has Deleted The Richie Allen Show Page

By Richie Allen | May 8, 2021

Facebook deleted The Richie Allen Show page overnight. There was no warning. The page had been managed by a friend of mine as I haven’t had a personal Facebook account for a few years.

I had my pals login details, so I could go in and post the recording of each day’s radio show. Rodge (my mate) rarely posted. When he did, it was to remind you that the show was about to start, or when I was on holiday, to remind you why I was away.

I’ve only ever posted the show on there and recently, articles from this website. Three months ago, Facebook emailed Rodge to say that the visibility of the page would be severely restricted, because the page was posting fake news. This was nonsense, but I didn’t care.

In the radio show, I interview academics and journalists who have been effectively banned from the media. In the articles, I report what these people are saying. The fake news claim is pathetic. I am a journalist and I hold myself to the highest standard.

I make it crystal clear when I am offering an opinion. “That’s conjecture,” I say. When stating a fact, I offer empirical evidence to support the claim.

I couldn’t care less that Facebook has banned the page. I was going to close the page several years ago when I deleted my personal page. I despise Facebook, but Rodge compelled me to keep it open. He’s a good lad so I said go ahead.

You know me. I despise megalomaniacal truthers and attention seekers who use information and people as their props. The indy media is filled to the brim with celebrity wannabes. For me, the information has always been the star and a proper presenter should put the guest and the info ahead of him or her. I’m not important. I am a conduit.

So you’ll believe me when I tell you this. They’re coming for The Richie Allen Show and they’re coming fast. Every other week, the show is criticised in a national newspaper, either here or back home, not because of anything I have said or done, but because of some of the people I have hosted. I’m never offered right of reply.

Some weeks ago, Talk Radio presenter James Whale allowed some goon from an organisation called Hope Not Hate, free rein to smear me and my radio show. It went on for ten minutes. Whale, the gormless stooge, never challenged him.

When I politely Tweeted Whale to inquire as to when I’d be given right of reply, he blocked me. Astonishing stuff. I’d have been fired for doing that, in my time on commercial radio.

Three times last week, academics declined to come on the show. This has become more common over the last two years.

They’d all heard of me and two of them said they really appreciated the show, but still they declined. “Richie, I’ll get destroyed if I come on with you,” is a standard reply now.

Why is this happening? It’s all about the numbers. That makes me smile. Ian Collins, on his Talk Radio show, in reply to a listener who told him that he loved the Richie Allen Show, said that “it’s all about the numbers.”

You’re damn right it is Ian. My live show averages 150,000 listeners a night. Read that line again. Ok, so they’re not all in the UK. In the last 30 days, the show has had 248,864 unique listeners in 98 countries.

The Podcast is downloaded or streamed more than two million times a month.

There has never been a show like it. You know me. I ain’t boasting. I’m making a point.

They’re not going to stand for it. I’ve known this for some time, as has my friend and colleague Hayden Hewitt and FAB Radio’s Paul Ripley. We’ve discussed it. They won’t stand for a show with that kind of reach, featuring content that challenges the covid narrative or anything else for that matter.

I’ll keep doing it though. I have a state of the art radio studio and an independent stream. I have my website. I have friends like Paul Ripley, Hayden Hewitt, and you. They’re going to try and make it harder and harder for you to find me. But I’ll always be here.

Have a great weekend. Join me for the most chilled music show in radio tomorrow at 10am.

May 8, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »