The Daily Wire hit piece targets Gustavo Espada, the financial and systems coordinator for Harvard’s Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations. According to the Wire, Espada “has been active in pushing 9/11 conspiracy theories for 18 years, according to a 2006 piece in The Lowell Sun which reported he spends 10 hours a week ‘handing out literature,’ Web logging and talking with people on the street about his views on 9/11.”
The thrust of the Wire hit piece is that Espada should be fired from his university job because he wants to debate 9/11. Reading the story brought back memories of a my own experience in 2006. While teaching subjects including Folklore, African Studies, and Islamic Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I had begun doing 9/11 teach-ins on campus in 2004, and then gotten involved in the national and global 9/11 truth movements. In 2006 I became the focus of a concerted pushback campaign sparked by Lynn Cheney’s group ACTA and its acolytes in the Wisconsin Republican Party.
Like Espada, I repeatedly challenged my detractors to meet me in a formal debate. In September 2006, while I was under fire from the State Legislature, the UW-Madison Debate Club sponsored what was supposed to be a debate on 9/11. They arranged for me and Jim Fetzer to argue against the 9/11 Commission’s official story, and told us that a history professor and a political science professor (Donald Downs, as I recall) had agreed to defend it. But at the last minute, the two pro-official-story professors backed out. So Jim Fetzer and I were left “debating” two empty chairs.
I reiterated my debate challenge. The university Provost, Patrick Farrell, told me that he would try to have the university set up some sort of formal panel discussion or debate after the media furor died down. Student newspapers at UW-Madison and UW-Oshkosh published op-eds plaintively begging for some knowledgable professor to debate and refute me. But nobody stepped forward to defend the 9/11 Commission.
Six months of media hoopla (July through December 2006) made me unemployable at the University of Wisconsin. I was denied a tenure-track Islam-Humanities job at U.W.-Whitewater purely due to my views of 9/11, according to whistleblowing then-Dean of Humanities Howard Ross. And I was told by the late Professor Muhammad Umar Memon, then a member of the UW-Madison hiring committee for its Islam classes, that the committee was informed by the University administration that I must not be rehired for my Islam 101 teaching job for the same reason.
Rendered unemployable due to my views of 9/11, but with nobody willing to debate me and explain why my views were wrong (privately most of my colleagues I knew personally thought my views were likely right or at least plausible) I offered a $1000 honorarium to any University of Wisconsin instructor, whether professor or TA, who was willing to defend the 9/11 Commission in a formal debate. There were no takers. Years later, the offer was raised to $2000. Still no takers.
Similar debate challenges were issued at other universities. A 9/11 truth group at the University of Michigan sent letters to every professor in the Engineering department seeking someone to defend the FEMA and NIST positions on the destruction of the World Trade Center in a debate with me and Underwriters Labs whistleblower Kevin Ryan. Most didn’t respond. The few who did told the organizers, off the record, that Ryan and I were right.
Could a 9/11 Debate Have Prevented Genocide?
According to the tenets of liberal democracy, all important matters are supposed to be debated on the basis of logic and evidence, and the truth that emerges becomes the touchstone of public policy. Had a real debate on 9/11 ever transpired, the truth that would have emerged—9/11 was orchestrated not by al-Qaeda, but by the state of Israel and its American neoconservative allies—would have prevented the series of wars that has devastated the Middle East, including the ongoing Israeli genocide of Gaza.
People resist debate when they know that logic and facts are not on their side. When would-be debaters like Espada are smeared, and their livelihoods threatened, it’s obvious that those doing the smearing know that their victims are right.
Can We Debate the Ukraine War?
Another topic that’s off-limits to debate is the US war on Russia through Ukraine. As with 9/11, the neoconservative propaganda talking points—the enemy is pure evil, “they” attacked “us” for no reason, and so on—are inflated to the status of sacred public myths, and anyone who wants to debate them is a damnable heretic. Merely for exposing us to Putin’s point of view, Tucker Carlson has been attacked by the whole mainstream media. As with 9/11, the neocon Establishment’s refusal to debate on logic and evidence, and its preference for shrill vituperation and ad-hominem attacks, suggests that it knows it couldn’t win a real debate with the likes of Putin.
Cancelled Candidates
Elections are a form of public policy debate. When the side with power knows that it can’t win a fair debate—as with the Pakistani military’s stand-off with Imran Khan—it may try to cancel the candidacy…or the candidate. Khan, who was very nearly assassinated by the Pakistani establishment, currently languishes in prison despite his overwhelming popularity among the vast majority of his countrymen. The Pakistani junta’s attempt to rig last week’s elections failed, because it’s impossible to convincingly rig an election when your opponent has such high levels of support. So the man who is the people’s choice and the rightful Prime Minister, targeted by ludicrous legal assaults including an attack on the legitimacy of his marriage, remains in prison… for now.
Imran Khan’s plight, we might imagine, is typical of tinpot third world military dictatorships, but irrelevant to the affairs of advanced Western democracies. But in both the US and Germany, pro-immigration Establishments are working overtime to keep anti-immigration parties and personalities off the ballot. Like the Pakistani Establishment vis-a-vis Imran Khan, the US and German Establishments don’t want to have to debate anti-immigration populist movements. So the Democrats in the US, and the ruling elites in Germany, are using various underhanded means to try to keep Trump and the MAGA movement, and the anti-immigration party AFD, off the two nations’ respective ballots.
Donald Trump, like Imran Khan, might very well end up winning an election from a prison cell. Like Khan, Trump has been targeted by a lawfare campaign expressly designed to torpedo his political chances. And Trump’s party, like Khan’s, views itself as the victim of widespread election fraud, and those who try to raise and debate the issue are deplatformed. Though the two cases aren’t fully comparable—Khan is overwhelmingly popular while Trump is controversial, Khan’s complaints are fully justified while Trump’s are only partly so, and Khan is completely honest and ethical while Trump is not—there are enough similarities to raise questions about whether American “democracy” is any healthier than Pakistan’s.
Undebatable COVID
The notion that the truth emerges through free and fair debate took a huge hit during COVID. We were told to “trust the science” and wear masks everywhere, even though the science suggests that there is no convincing evidence that masks significantly slow the spread of respiratory viruses. The debate about COVID origins was unceremoniously quashed, and people were deplatformed for even mentioning the issue. And arguments about whether highly experimental vaccines should be mass-tested on entire populations were likewise suppressed. Only one position—the Establishment’s—was allowed.
One More Question for Debate
So in light of all the signs that liberal democracy is dead and free and fair debate no longer effectively exists, I propose one last subject for debate: Should debate itself be legal? Or to rephrase that in debate-ese: “Resolved: Debate should be criminalized, and would-be debaters should be imprisoned or executed.”
Here is the text of the expert report on Mann v. Simberg/Steyn in 2020 that I prepared at the request of Mark Steyn’s counsel.
My report, along with all other expert reports from both sides except for Abraham Wyner, were not admitted into evidence.
In my opinion, my report provides some much needed context for the trial. Here is a formatted pdf of my complete expert report [Curry Steyn Mann]
Report of Judith Curry, Ph. D.
I submit this report under D.C. Superior Court Civil Rule 26(a)(2)(B) & (C) as both fact and expert witness to address the subject matter on which I expect to present evidence and to summarize the facts and opinions on which I expect to testify. This report includes my observations and opinions as a lay and expert witness concerning three principal topics: (I) the nature of the scientific and public controversy concerning the Hockey Stick graph; (II) whether the Hockey Stick graph can be regarded as ‘fraudulent’; and (III) Michael Mann’s role in the downward spiral of climate science discourse. I present sections (I) and (III) mostly in my capacity as a fact/lay opinion witness and section (II) in my capacity as an expert witness.
SUMMARY
This report addresses the issue of whether it is reasonable to refer to the Hockey Stick graph as ‘fraudulent’ in the course of the public debate on climate change.
What is the nature of the scientific and public controversy concerning the Hockey Stick?
It is my opinion that the Hockey Stick has generated a dynamic and heated debate about its significance and its flaws. Since its publication, Mann’s Hockey Stick has been the subject of intense and often polemical comment and argument in: (a) peer-reviewed, scientific publications critical of the Hockey Stick; (b) analyses of the science behind the Hockey Stick on technical climate blogs; (c) published books on the Hockey Stick controversy; (d) articles by leading science journalists in the mainstream media; (e) online encyclopedia entries on the ‘Hockey Stick Controversy’; (f) Congressional hearings and investigations related to the Hockey Stick; and (e) the personal controversy surrounding Michael Mann in his efforts to defend the Hockey Stick and to thwart his critics.
2. Is it reasonable to regard the Hockey Stick as ‘fraudulent’?
It is my opinion that it is reasonable to have referred to the Hockey Stick in 2012 as ‘fraudulent,’ in the sense that aspects of it are deceptive and misleading:
Image falsification: Mann’s efforts to conceal the so-called “divergence problem” by deleting downward-trending post-1960 data and also by splicing earlier proxy data with later instrumental data is consistent with most standards of image fraud.
Cherry picking: Evidence shows that Mann engaged in selective data cherry picking to create the Hockey Stick, and that this cherry picking contributes to the perception of a “fraudulent” Hockey Stick by journalists, the public and scientists from other fields.
Data falsification (the ‘upside-down’ Tiljander proxy): Substantial evidence shows that Mann inverted data from the Tiljander proxies in a version of the Hockey Stick published in 2008. Mann did not acknowledge his mistaken interpretation of data. Even after published identification of the mistake, this mistake has propagated through subsequent literature including the IPCC 4th Assessment Report.
3. What is Mann’s role in the downward spiral of climate science discourse?
It is my opinion that the scientific discourse surrounding climate change in general, and the Hockey Stick in particular, has deteriorated in civility and professionalism, and that Mann has played a significant and active role in this corrosion and unprofessional degradation of tone. Mann’s approach to public discourse about his work and broader topics in climate change has contributed much to the hostility and animosity that characterize and mark these exchanges. My opinionis based on: (a) the norms of science and scientific discourse; (b) Mann’s withholding of data from his peers; (c) Mann’s efforts to stifle skepticism; and (d) Mann’s attacks on scientists who disagree with him.
THE SCIENTIFIC AND PUBLIC CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING THE HOCKEY STICK
The Hockey Stick is a graph of global temperatures for the last 600 to 1000 years, reconstructed from tree rings and other so-called proxy data. Its name comes from its shape – a long flat ‘handle’ representing comparatively stable temperatures in earlier centuries, followed by a dramatic uptick – the ‘blade’. The Hockey Stick graph was originally published in two papers co-authored by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes (MBH98, MBH99)[1]. MBH98 included a 600-year reconstruction and MBH99 included a 1000-year reconstruction.
Although Mann had only recently received his Ph.D., he was named as a lead author for a chapter in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR), published in 2001. The Hockey Stick graph appeared seven times in the IPCC TAR, and appeared as the backdrop in the IPCC press conference announcing the findings of the report. Rather than displaying all of the long-term temperature reconstructions considered by the IPCC TAR, the opening figure of the Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers highlighted a graph of temperature reconstructions based only on the MBH99 paper.
Following the public release of the IPCC TAR, the Hockey Stick was regarded as central to the IPCC’s case for global warming. The Hockey Stick was, for a time, arguably the most important graph in the world. Its message of unprecedented warmth at the end of the twentieth century was a vital part of the campaign to persuade the public that mankind had changed the world’s climate.
Since publication of the Hockey Stick in Mann’s paleoclimate reconstructions of temperatures (MBH98/99) and its prominence in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR; 2001)[2], there has been substantial scientific controversy over the methods that Mann and his co-authors used in this research. The controversy extends to the results of their analysis, which contradicted existing geological and historical knowledge of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Of particular note are two papers published by McIntyre and McKitrick in 2005 that challenged the MBH98/99 analyses (section IIA). These papers motivated two Congressional investigations and hearings in 2006 (section IIE).
In November 2009, the unauthorized release of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UK) (“Climategate”) revealed that several scientists (including Mann) had evaded Freedom of Information Act requests for data, manipulated the peer review process, downplayed uncertainty about their research and attempted to squash disagreement and dissent from ‘skeptics.’ The publicity surrounding Climategate (Sections IIB, IIC) brought the Hockey Stick controversy back into the public debate on climate change, largely vindicating a range of concerns that had been raised by McIntyre and McKitrick.
The analysis presented in this section documents the controversy surrounding the Hockey Stick, without passing judgment on the merits (or not) of the original research or the criticisms.
As an active participant in the debate over climate change and the Hockey Stick, I recall the development of this debate.
I summarize this controversy by considering the following sources:
Scientific journal publications critical of the Hockey Stick
Critical analyses in technical climate blogs
Published books on the Hockey Stick controversy
Articles by leading science journalists in the mainstream media
Online encyclopedia entries on the ‘Hockey Stick Controversy’
Congressional Hearings and investigations related to the Hockey Stick
Yesterday, a jury in Washington, DC awarded renowned climate scientist Michael E. Mann more than $1,000,000 in damages in a defamation lawsuit he brought against two bloggers.1 I was a witness in the case and testified on Tuesday.2 Here, I’ll offer my thoughts on the case and some personal reflections on my experience.
Mann’s case alleged that he was defamed by statements made the bloggers more than a decade ago, which harmed his reputation and career (I won’t rehash the details here, but you can get a full accounting of the trial at this comprehensive podcast).3
The defense built their case around making three points to the jury.
One was to bring in experts to testify that Mann’s methods in producing the so-called “Hockey Stick” graph were manipulative, and thus critics of the Hockey Stick were factually correct in saying so. The second point was to demonstrate that the debate over climate during the time that the blog posts were written was intense and vitriolic, with Mann saying things about others that were worse than what the defendants said about him.4 Finally, the defense argued that Mann hardly put on a case — he provided no evidence or witnesses supporting his claims of damage to reputation or career.
In contrast, the prosecution was — in the words of the court, “disjointed” — and was reprimanded on multiple occasions by the judge, most notably for knowingly providing false information to the jury on alleged damages suffered by Mann.5 When I was cross-examined, Mann’s lawyer had considerable trouble getting basic facts right like timelines and who said what.6
Even so, in a trial that most neutral observers would surely see as favoring the arguments of the defense, Mann walked away with a resounding, comprehensive victory.7 How did that happen?
In my view, there were two absolutely pivotal moments in the trial.
One occurred when Mann was testifying and he explained that he felt that the bloggers were not just criticizing him, but they were attacking all of climate science, and he could not let that stand. As the world’s most accomplished and famous climate scientist, Mann intimated that he was simply the embodiment of all of climate science.
For the jury, this set up the notion that this trial was not really about Mann, but about attacks on all of climate science from climate deniers.
The second pivotal moment occurred when in closing arguments Mann’s lawyer asked the jury to send a message to right-wing science deniers and Trump supporters with a large punitive damage award.
Here is how an advocacy group called “DeSmog” accurately reported these dynamics:
Mann sued Simberg and Steyn for defamation, but the trial proved to be about much more than statements that harmed the scientist’s reputation — the entire field and validity of climate science was under scrutiny.
In closing arguments, Mann’s lawyer John Williams compared the climate deniers in this case to election deniers overall. “Why do Trumpers continue to deny that he won the election?” he asked the jury. “Because they truly believe what they say or because they want to further their agenda?”
He asked the jury to consider the same question about Steyn and Simberg: Did they believe what they wrote was the truth, or did they just want to push their agenda? . . .
“Michael Mann is tired of being attacked,” Williams told the jury. “You have the opportunity to serve as an example to prevent others from acting in a similar way” to Simberg and Steyn.
An underlying current throughout this trial has been that climate denialism, like what the two defendants practice, isn’t really about the science. It’s more about politics and policy that drives organizations and individuals to “attack the science and confuse the public . . .
This framing — climate deniers versus climate science — has also characterized mainstream media coverage. For instance, The Washington Post announced, on the day that the case went to the jury, that this case was part of a “mounting campaign” against “right-wing trolls” (below).
Prominent climate scientist or right-wing trolls? Which side are you on?
The case was formally about defamation, but in reality it was not at all about defamation.
As Michael Mann stated after the verdict, the case was really about politics and ideology:
Take a victory lap, Dr. Mann
This is about the defense of science against scurrilous attacks, and dishonest efforts to undermine scientists who are just trying to do our job … whose findings might prove inconvenient to certain ideologically driven individuals and outlets. It’s about the integrity of the science and making sure that bad actors aren’t allowed to make false and defamatory statements about scientists in their effort to advance an agenda.
The defense made a big mistake in thinking that it would be sufficient to win by proving their case while Mann chose not to put one on. That was wrong.
There is no equivalence here between the “renowned” Michael Mann and the “right-wing trolls” who deny climate science and support Donald Trump. The case, at least in this particular venue, was simply unwinnable no matter what cases were put on by the prosecution and the defense. Mann simply had to show up.
The fact that the jury awarded him only $2 in actual damages and $1,001,000 in punitive damages (send a message!) supports this interpretation — The defense won on merits, and Mann won on the framing and the politics.
What does the case mean for discourse about politically contentious issues that involve science? Science magazine reports that it means that we now need to be circumspect in how we engage these issues:
In a statement, Mann said, “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.”8
At the same time, the ruling could end up having a chilling effect on necessary public criticism of science, says Gene Policinski, a senior fellow at the Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation focused on First Amendment protections. People will need “to be more judicious in commentary. They might be more vague or circumspect.” And that could be to the detriment of the public, he says. “It’s important in today’s world for people to be aware of research that’s going on and having people both praise and criticize it openly.”
For Mann’s part, he signals that he is just getting started in his legal campaign against his opponents:
Asked about Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review, [Mann’s lawyer] John Williams said, “They’re next.”
I would not be surprised to now see a flurry of lawsuits against people who have been critical of climate science or climate scientists. Such legal action may not be limited to climate — debate over Covid-19 also presents a target-rich environment for unwanted speech to silence. Watch this space.
Finally, let me offer some personal reflections on my experiences.
Form the start, my view was that this entire lawsuit was unnecessary and a waste of everyone’s time. People who I still would not recognize on the street said some mean things about Michael Mann on the internet. Welcome to public discourse in the 21st century. People say mean, false things about me on the internet every day — it goes with the many privileges of having outsized impact and voice. The case was never about the integrity of science or the political impact of right-wing trolls — it was always about Michael Mann.
As I stood in line with dozens of other people on Tuesday waiting to go through security to enter the courthouse, I wondered how we got here — how leading scientists and institutions of climate science became totally consumed with a battle against minor bloggers and political boogeymen.
When I entered the courtroom, I had a profound sense of sadness for Mann. He was alone with his lawyer — no family, no friends, no university officials, no adoring fans, no mainstream media. Totally alone. There were just a handful of observers in the room. As I said at the trial, Mann has not been the best colleague to me, but I am fine even so. Who knows what demons haunt him and why he behaves the way that he does. I do hope he can find peace at some point.
The larger issues here are not about Mann, but rather the continued failures within the climate science community to uphold fundamental norms of conduct among its own ranks. For instance, in the trial we learned that Penn State’s committee looking into Mann’s conduct following Climategate wanted to censure him for his behavior — apparently that was overturned upon the intervention of the Penn State president. There have been so many similar opportunities for leaders to take the off-ramp from escalated conflict and politicization, and the community instead chose to further conflict.
Like I said, it is just sad. And it is not over yet.
Representative Jim Jordan, along with 44 other Congressional members, joined forces with America First Legal (AFL) to submit a crucial brief to the US Supreme Court. This brief supports Missouri, Louisiana, and private plaintiffs in the significant case of Murthy v. Missouri. The case centers on allegations of the federal government’s unconstitutional suppression of free speech on social media platforms.
The AFL, in collaboration with co-counsel Christopher Mills, has been actively combating what they perceive as a growing censorship crisis. The brief presented to the Supreme Court contends that the federal government has been exerting undue influence on private tech companies. This influence, the brief argues, has led to the suppression of First Amendment-protected speech concerning COVID-19, the Biden family’s alleged influence peddling, and various election-related issues.
These arguments were previously raised in the Fifth Circuit, where AFL represented Representative Jordan and other members of the House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.
The involvement of these bodies stemmed from their investigative work, which unearthed the extent of federal pressure on private entities, compelling them to censor speech. This was notably highlighted through disclosures in The Facebook Files and The Twitter Files.
“The First Amendment is first for a reason,” Rep. Jim Jordan said in a statement. “Through our constitutional oversight, we have uncovered evidence that the Biden Administration directed and coerced Big Tech companies to censor content online and even books. With the Supreme Court set to hear one of the most important free speech cases in years, 45 Senators and Representatives filed this brief to share Congress’s findings and urge the Court to uphold the free speech rights of American citizens.”
Israeli lawmakers are moving forward with a bill to punish those accused of “denying” or “downplaying” Israel’s narrative of October 7th with five years in prison.
“Israel’s Knesset approves a bill, which punishes the denial or ‘downplaying’ of the Israeli narrative of Oct 7 by up to 5 years in prison,” the Palestinian Quds News Network reported.
“The approved bill is one out of three bills that included the expulsion of families of Palestinians who resist, imprisonment for those who deny Israel’s narrative on October 7, and compensation for notorious ZAKA organization.”
From The Jerusalem Post, “Israeli Ministerial Committee approves imprisonment for denying Oct. 7, ZAKA compensation”:
The bill approved by Yisrael Beytenu MK Oded Forer prohibits the denial of the October 7 massacre. According to the proposal, anyone who publishes, in writing or orally, things that deny the massacre or downplays it or publishes praise, sympathy, or identification with the actions committed by Hamas in the events of that day – will be sentenced to five years in prison.
The explanation for the bill reads: “The denial of the massacre constitutes an attempt to rewrite history already at this stage, in an attempt to hide, minimize, and facilitate the crimes committed against the Jewish people and the State of Israel.”
The proposal by Likud MK Moshe Passal gives financial compensation to ZAKA volunteers who volunteered for endeavors carried out by the organization during Operation Swords of Iron.
“There is no doubt that the volunteers took a significant part and did hard work, both physically and mentally. They were a significant part of the holy work for the people of Israel and worked together with the IDF, so they deserve to be rewarded for their important work,” Passal said.
No doubt they want to use this law to jail journalists from Haaretz and other Israeli news organizations which debunked much of the atrocity propaganda Israel put out after Oct 7.
The Times of Israel last week ran a piece arguing that questioning Israel’s narratives on Oct 7 is a form of “Holocaust denial” and insisting that Big Tech should do more to censor such “unacceptable” speech.
With Israel’s atrocity propaganda getting debunked in real-time and their excuses for genocide being rejected by the overwhelming majority of the world, they’re now demanding overt censorship and moving to jail whoever they can for exposing their lies.
A new £5.5 million ($6.9 million) pro-Israel initiative aimed at students has been launched by the UK. It’s reported that the initiative will seek to propagate the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition” of anti-Semitism, to young children and students.
Details of the initiative were revealed by the UK government on Tuesday as part of what it calls an initiative to tackle anti-Semitism in education. According to the government website, the British Department of Education is seeking to tender a contract worth $6.9 million for potential suppliers to undertake the task of delivering its programme to schools and universities.
The successful bidder will be required to deliver the contract across the UK in the North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands, East of England, London, South East, South West. Bids have to be placed by 7 March this year.
The procurement is split into two distinct lots: The first is to develop and implement a programme of initiatives aimed at tackling anti-Semitism in universities. “The cornerstone” of the contract is the anti-Palestinian IHRA, which will be rolled out across the country and used to set basic guidelines.
The second lot requires the supplier to develop and implement a programme of initiatives aimed at tackling anti-Semitism in schools and colleges. This will involve the development and rollout of training for school and college staff and student engagement opportunities.
Concerns have been raised over the government’s deployment of the discredited IHRA definition of anti-Semitism for an initiative targeting children and universities. The so-called “working definition” of anti-Semitism favoured by Israel has been weaponised against critics of the apartheid state.
This week saw advocates of the IHRA suffer a major blow in their effort to proscribe anti-Zionist and anti-Israel views. In the landmark case involving Professor David Miller, a Bristol-based Employment Tribunal ruled that “anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic.”
The case is seen as being not only a vindication of Miller, who successfully sued the University of Bristol for wrongful dismissal, but the verdict has also exonerated those who have been warning for years about the weaponisation of anti-Semitism by the pro-Israel lobby against critics of the apartheid state.
Miller was a victim of a toxic anti-free speech culture generated after UK institutions adopted the IHRA definition. Governments, political parties, employers and universities began to impose speech codes with the clear aim of policing the boundaries of free speech regarding Israel and Zionism.
As an expert on the threat to democracy posed by corporate lobbying who exposed, among other things, the role of the global Zionist movement in fuelling anti-Muslim hatred, Miller became an obvious target. He was accused of breaching the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. The University of Bristol adopted in full the “working definition” in 2019, three years before firing Miller.
Miller’s victory has sent shockwaves through the pro-Israel lobby in Britain. Already there are calls for reckoning to take place over the way in which anti-Semitism has been weaponised through the adoption of the IHRA definition in order to purge members from the Labour Party for their avowedly anti-Zionist views.
As part of a bold move to safeguard free speech and uphold constitutional values, America First Legal (AFL) has initiated a series of public records requests aimed at unearthing the extent of Arizona government agencies’ involvement in controlling social media narratives.
We obtained a copy of the records requests for you here.
These requests target the Center for Internet Security, along with Coconino, Maricopa, and Pima Counties, and the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office. The inquiry seeks details on communications and takedown requests pertaining to social media content.
The issue at hand revolves around recent elections, where federal and state entities, notably from Arizona, have actively engaged in monitoring and reporting what they classify as “misinformation.”
Coordinated by the Center for Internet Security (CIS), the EI-ISAC acted as a conduit, forwarding these censorship requests to various social media platforms. Additionally, state and local government officials in Arizona have independently reported supposed misinformation directly to these platforms.
This has led to a situation where government officials have been accused of effectively coercing and pressuring social media companies into censoring content and speakers that they deem unfavorable, potentially influencing the outcomes of Arizona’s recent elections.
This entire scenario is seen by many as a glaring infringement of lawful free speech and is considered both unconstitutional and illegal.
“Freedom of speech is a core American principle that is the foundation for so many of our other rights and liberties. No government official should ever get involved in policing what American citizens can and can’t say online. Arizona’s elections play an outsized role in national politics right now. State and county officials who have been trying to suppress citizens’ free speech are also unconstitutionally trying to meddle in elections. That sort of activity needs to stop, and these public records requests will help shine a light on the extent of their past activities,” said James Rogers, America First Legal counsel.
GAZA – The Palestinian Information Center (PIC) has mourned the tragic loss of its office director in Gaza, Dr. Rizq al-Gharabli, who was martyred on Tuesday during relentless Israeli attacks on Khan Yunis, south of the Gaza Strip.
Dr. Gharabli’s death brings to 123 the number of Palestinian journalists who have been martyred since the Israeli occupation state started its genocidal war on Gaza.
The Government Media Office announced yesterday the martyrdom of Dr. Gharabli in an Israeli airstrike on his home in Khan Yunis.
Last Monday, the International Federation of Journalists organized a rally outside the European Union headquarters in Brussels in solidarity with the journalists in Gaza and in protest at the European silence on Israel’s crimes against civilians, especially journalists.
The participants in the protest carried placards and banners that said “Freedom for Palestinian journalists,” “Israel, stop killing journalists in Gaza” and “Journalists in Gaza, we are with you.”
Allegations that the administration of US President Joe Biden tried to stop journalist Tucker Carlson from interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin are “ridiculous”, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said during a daily press briefing on Tuesday.
The former Fox News host interviewed Putin on Tuesday, the Kremlin has confirmed. Carlson however, has claimed that Washington has consistently attempted to block his overtures to the Russian president.
”Almost three years ago, the Biden administration illegally spied on our text messages and then leaked their contents to their servants in the news media. They did this in order to stop a Putin interview that we were planning,” he asserted. “Last month, we’re pretty certain they did exactly the same thing once again. But this time, we came to Moscow anyway.”
Asked about Carlson’s allegation, Jean-Pierre initially said she would “absolutely not” comment, but later changed her mind.
”It’s a ridiculous premise and a ridiculous statement that was made about this administration,” she said.
Carlson has claimed on several occasions that while trying to arrange a one-on-one with Putin, he found out from a source that his communications were being intercepted by US intelligence. He said his messages were quoted back to him verbatim, confirming the surveillance.
The NSA has denied targeting the journalist, but the Axios news website has partially corroborated his story, citing unnamed US government officials who said the government indeed had learned about his efforts to secure an interview with Putin. The outlet suggested that “US-based Kremlin intermediaries” contacted by Carlson had leaked the communications.
The journalist, how hosts a show on X (formerly Twitter) stated in his preview that the American media were failing to properly inform the public about the nature of the Ukraine conflict and the wider confrontation between the US and Russia. He said he had the backing of X owner Elon Musk, who vowed not to block the interview on his platform.
”Western governments, by contrast, will certainly do their best to censor this video on other, less principled platforms, because that’s what they do. They are afraid of information they can’t control” he predicted.
American journalist Tucker Carlson could be banned from visiting the European Union after interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin, Newsweek said on Wednesday, quoting one former and two current MEPs.
The former Fox News host was spotted in Moscow last weekend and revealed on Tuesday that he would be interviewing Putin. The interview will be posted on X (formerly Twitter), with the platform’s owner Elon Musk guaranteeing it won’t be censored, Carlson said.
Former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, now a member of the European Parliament, has already called for Carlson to be banned from the bloc.
“As Putin is a war criminal and the EU sanctions all who assist him in that effort, it seems logical that the External Action Service examine his case as well,” Verhofstadt told Newsweek. The EAS is responsible for the bloc’s foreign policy and can recommend sanctions, which need to be approved by the European Council.
Verhofstadt is best known for having served as the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, and for championing the idea of the bloc becoming an “empire.” He is not a lone voice in demanding a ban on Carlson, however.
The journalist “is no longer a newsman, but a propagandist for the most heinous regime on European soil,” former Spanish MEP Luis Garicano told Newsweek. The London School of Economics alumnus now teaches at two US universities.
“Carlson wants to give a platform to someone accused of crimes of genocide – this is wrong,” Estonian MEP Urmas Paet told the outlet, falsely characterizing the International Criminal Court (ICC) claims against the Russian president. Moscow has rejected the case as politically motivated.
“So, for such propaganda for a criminal regime, you can end up on the list of sanctions. This concerns primarily a travel ban to EU countries,” added Paet, the former foreign minister of the Baltic state.
Announcing his interview on Tuesday, Carlson said “We’re not here because we love Vladimir Putin. We are here because we love the US and want it to remain prosperous and free.”
Americans were ignorant of “history-altering developments” arising from the Ukraine conflict, because English-language media have lied to them, mostly by omission, Carlson said. “That’s wrong. Americans have the right to know all they can about a war they are implicated in.”
The US and its EU allies have sent over $200 billion in military and financial aid to Kiev since the conflict escalated in 2022, while arguing they are not directly involved.
Metropolitan Eugene, the head of the self-governed Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, has been denied a residency permit by the Baltic nation, forcing him out of the country this week. Tallinn has claimed that his public statements undermined national security.
The senior bishop, who has Russian citizenship, was elected head of the Estonian church in 2018. Local authorities announced last month that his request to renew his two-year residency permit had been denied, with the deadline to leave the country expiring on Tuesday.
After a church service on Sunday, he told other clerics and parishioners that it was the last time he would be conducting the ceremony for the foreseeable future. In his farewell address, Eugene said no person is given a cross that he or she is unable to bear, and urged the congregation to seek solace in the fact that the Christian faith has survived far worse times.
”This is not the time to be desperate. Not the time, because there are no persecutions during which blood is shed. And every time is a blessing in its own way,” he said.
The Church said its leader was given a final formal rejection of his residency application on Monday.
The Estonian Police and Border Guard Service, which took the decision, claimed in its January announcement that the cleric was deemed undesirable by the government due to unspecified public statements supposedly supporting Russia in the Ukraine conflict.
He “would not change his behavior despite numerous warnings given to him,” a district head of the agency, Indrek Aru, claimed, adding: “This decision does not affect in any way the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and believers”.
According to Estonian media, in 2022 Eugene called for an end to the Ukraine conflict, which he described as fratricidal, and refused to put the blame solely on Russia for its outbreak, contradicting the position of the Estonian government.
Interior Minister Lauri Laanemets has branded Eugene a “Kremlin man” boosting Russian messaging, and claimed that the bishop answered directly to Patriarch Kirill, leader of the Russian Orthodox Church.
His de facto expulsion gives the Estonian Church “an opportunity to find a new leader, who shares our values and breathes in rhythm with the rest of the Estonian society,” the official declared, after denying that his government was interfering in religious affairs.
RAMALLAH – At least 135 crimes, assaults and violations committed by the Israeli occupation against journalism in Palestine were recorded in January, the foremost of which was the killing of 14 journalists, including eight who were killed by direct missile and bullet attacks against their homes and four others who were killed while on the job, according to the monthly report issued by the Freedom Committee at the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate.
The report stressed that the Israeli attacks on journalists, including the intentional targeting of their homes and the killing of their families, continued unabated. According to the report, 12 inhabited houses were targeted, which led to the killing of dozens of journalists’ family members.
The report affirmed the Israeli occupation soldiers’ lawless measures against journalists in the West Bank, adding that 50 cases of attacks against journalists were recorded, including detaining press crews, preventing them from doing their job and targeting them with live bullets.
The report stressed that journalists are faced with violence and intimidation, recording at least 26 incidents in which four journalists were brutally injured by bullets and missile shrapnel, in addition to four others who sustained cuts and bruises in Israeli attacks.
The report recorded four cases of beatings, eight injuries by tear gas and sound bombs and seven cases of destruction and seizure of equipment. In addition, the Israeli occupation detained two journalists and stormed press institutions and the homes of three journalists. One journalist was also subjected to prosecution.
The report also cited the complete interruption of communication and internet services for 14 days last month as a result of the Israeli direct targeting of telecommunications towers in Gaza. Several technical staff were killed by the Israeli occupation while attempting to fix the damage, it added.
The commission said that 116 journalists and media workers have been killed in the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the Israeli aggression on October 7.
At least 35 journalists remain behind Israeli bars under harsh conditions that deny them the most basic rights of prisoners enshrined in international laws and conventions, according to the report.
The report added that the fate of several journalists remains unknown after losing all contact with them on October 7.
Marc Dutroux, Belgian pedophile, sadist, and serial killer with friends in high places
By Aedon Cassiel | Counter – Currents | December 23, 2016
To reiterate a point that should be clear to the more astute reader, my goal in this series (part 1, part 2) has not been to defend “Pizzagate” as such. My goal has been to defend the people who want to investigate it against specific accusations levied against them by people who think Pizzagate has revealed no intriguing information at all—for a specific reason, which I will be honing in and focusing on much more directly in this closing entry.
Whereas the mainstream critics of Pizzagate would have you believe that the dividing line is between paranoid conspiracy theorist followers of “fake news” and level-headed people who follow trustworthy news sources and rely on cold, hard reason to determine the truth, my goal has been to show that—whatever is or is not happening with Pizzagate itself—this framing of the issue is arrogant, insulting, and the product of extremely narrow tunnel vision. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 