‘PC’, Orwellian censorship – 1984, official lies, media lies, ‘socialism’ and modern ‘democracy’

Many from the ‘Left’, progressives, Cultural Marxists and activists keep trying to stymie democracy with their shrill, often illogical, Orwellian and ideological views. The following articles provide evidence.

‘Nineteen Eighty-Four is now a policing manual’

Nineteen Eighty-Four is now a policing manual  From Spiked Online, 17 August 2019

Harry Miller on being investigated by police for his trans-critical tweets.

In January, Harry Miller was investigated by the police for retweeting a limerick on Twitter. The police said the limerick – and 30 other tweets – constituted transphobic hate speech.

Miller is one of the thousands of ordinary people who have found themselves on the sharp end of the law in recent years simply for expressing their views. Social-media posts, usually intended as jokes or political arguments, are increasingly being criminalised if they convey the ‘wrong’ opinions about certain topics. Posts on trans issues are considered particularly toxic and are zealously investigated by police. Miller, alongside barristers, police officers and other victims of police overreach, have started the Fair Cop campaign to defend free speech. spiked caught up with Miller to find out more.

spiked: What happened when the police investigated you?

Harry Miller: It was January, I had just been shopping and I was sitting in the car park and I got a phone call from work saying that a copper had turned up at the office and wanted to speak to me. They gave me his number and I rang him. I had no idea what it was about. He said I was wanted for transphobic hate speech. Somebody from down south had complained. They said my workplace was probably a very ‘dangerous’ place because of me. I thought this was ridiculous. I asked the officer, ‘Have I committed any crime?’. He said, ‘No, you have not committed a crime’.

The police had 30 tweets of mine. I asked the officer, ‘What’s the worst one you’ve got? Which one comes closest to the edge of being dangerously criminal?’ He said, ‘Well, there is this limerick’. I replied to say that I hadn’t written any limericks. He said, ‘No, but you have retweeted a limerick’. He read it to me, and I was like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me’. It wasn’t even a limerick. It was a lyric from a feminist song. He told me I had to stop doing this. I asked again if I had done anything wrong. And that is when he said the immortal line: ‘I need to check your thinking.’

I told him all about George Orwell. Nineteen Eighty-Four was supposed to be a dystopian novel, not a policing manual. He had never heard of George Orwell so that flew totally over his head. Then he said to me, ‘What you have to understand, Mr Miller, is that sometimes a female brain grows with the wrong body parts and that is what being trans is’. And I thought, just fucking roll that one back a second, will you? I asked if that was the official definition of trans? And he said, ‘Yes, I’ve been on a course’.

I just laughed at him. I spent over 30 minutes on the phone to him while he lectured me on thoughtcrime, lady brains and penises, which I thought was quite amusing. When the news broke, everyone started sending limericks to Humberside police which really pissed on their chips.

The assistant chief constable went public to explain the decision to investigate me. He said that the police were ‘in possession of more than 30 transphobic tweets and we’ve had to intervene to stop it escalating’. I was thinking, how can a non-crime escalate to a crime? They had already said that nothing I did was criminal. So what is the formula for escalation?

We put a complaint in and all the police did was double down. They said they had to intervene on these things because of Stephen Lawrence. I said I wasn’t entirely sure how my tweets could possibly be linked to a stabbing of a black kid at a bus stop by a bunch of white racist thugs. They said, ‘We are not saying you can’t tweet. We are just saying we would rather you didn’t.’

I then asked Humberside police to remove me from their hate-crime statistics. They said they couldn’t because they were following the policing guidelines. Bizarrely, the College of Policing’s guidelines say that ‘a hate incident is any incident that a police officer or another member of the public considers to be motivated by hate’. It also says, ‘no evidence of hate is required’. No evidence of hate is required? Well, that’s absolute nonsense, how could that possibly be true? We have now been granted a judicial review at the High Court in November to challenge this.

spiked: What’s the aim of the judicial review?

Miller: There are two defendants. First is Humberside police. We’ve told them to remove my name from their hate-incident statistics. They can’t have me down as a hate incident because there was no hate and there was no incident. Defendant number two is the College of Policing. We have told them they have to immediately withdraw their guidelines on hate incidents because they make no sense.

The problem is that there is a massive conflation between guidance and law. The College of Policing issue guidance that is based on Stonewall’s definition of transphobia, which is not based in law. According to Stonewall and the police, transphobia covers anyone that refuses to believe in the trans ideology. That ideology doesn’t just include men who think they are women — it includes non-binary, agender, bigender, genderfluid, gender-neutral, gender variant, intergender… the list goes on and on. So I have to believe in all of these because to say I don’t believe in them is ‘hate speech’. We are being coerced into believing this bollocks.

spiked: Are we in danger of criminalising everyday speech?

Miller: Absolutely. It took me from January until June to get a copy of the tweets the police were investigatng. One of them simply said, ‘When did transgender day of remembrance become a thing?’. Just asking the question. Another one – and I have no idea who I’m saying this to because they’ve redacted it – was me retweeting something with a comment and all I’ve put is, ‘Huh?’. ‘Huh’ is now hate speech. Seriously, ‘huh’ is hate speech. Another one is me saying, ‘I’m switching channels between Gillette Soccer Saturday and Sarah Brightman on Sky Arts. Proof positive that I’m genderqueer.’ I was taking the piss out of myself and that’s considered hate speech. And not just hate speech. The police say that this was hate speech ‘designedto cause upset and distress to the transgender community.’ Are they fucking having a laugh?

My friend Margaret Nelson, who is in her 70s, is also part of the Fair Cop campaign. She wrote a blog that talked about the archaeological sexing of bones. She had a phone call from the police because sexing bones is transphobic. Seriously? She was investigated for the crime of misgendering by the West Yorkshire police. And then there’s me, who retweeted a shit limerick and questioned ‘transgender day’. So, there’s a whole bunch of us who think this is ridiculous. Just because we don’t believe in the gender fairy, that automatically puts us on the wrong side of the law.

The police, as far as we are concerned, should be upholding the law, that’s it. What they shouldn’t be doing is upholding a political ideology. We are saying this is not right and it needs to stop.

Harry Miller was talking to Fraser Myers. You can support Harry’s appeal here.


State of secrecy in Australia a scandal for a modern democracy

State of secrecy in Australia a scandal for a modern democracy  Editorial from The Australian newspaper, 14 August 2019

Who believes a free and open press is a fundamental pillar of our democracy? According to submissions to the federal parliamentary inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on freedom of the press, everyone. Australian Federal Police: tick. Australian Signals Directorate: tick. Office of National Intelligence: tick. Department of Home Affairs: tick. Attorney-General’s Department: tick. ASIO? Classified. Of course. The problem, however, is that in recent years many legal provisions that undermine and threaten the public’s right to know have been passed by parliament under the guise of national security concerns and national security legislation. Since 2001, for instance, 75 pieces of counter-terrorism legislation have been enacted. Australia’s Right to Know coalition, including our publisher News Corp Australia, argues that with each new law, “the tide of secrecy rises”. It threatens to drown us in ignorance.

The June AFP raids on the home of News Corp’s Annika Smethurst and the ABC’s Sydney headquarters were the catalyst for the inquiry. The raids, over stories published and broadcast in April last year and July 2017, respectively, were intimidatory. The aim of current laws is to stop journalists doing their jobs, telling stories, by threatening them with criminal charges and jail. The justification is national security or counter-terrorism, but the reality is very few instances involve public safety. Instead, as the media coalition argues, the threats exist to stop reporting of “uncomfortable or unpleasant realities”. The laws have everything to do with the exercise of power and the avoidance of scrutiny — usually simply to save public servants and politicians from embarrassing disclosures.

We often hear about a balancing act between the public’s right to know and the control of government information. But as the laws stand — and there are many beyond the narrow scope of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry — there is no balance or proper accountability. Unlike the US and Britain, we have no explicit rights to free speech, a free media and access to information. As University of NSW dean of law George Williams wrote yesterday, a stronger counterbalance is required, with the parliament enacting clear, positive protection for freedom of speech and freedom of the press that ensures national security and other laws are applied to respect these freedoms — not as an afterthought but as an active consideration at the start of the process of making new laws. In the meantime, there is a lot of work to do to repair existing laws that are defective in promoting the public’s right to know.

In its submission, the coalition — which includes Nine Entertainment Co and the ABC — calls for quick and decisive action in six areas. First, the right for journalists and media outlets to contest the application for warrants. Second, adequate protection for public sector whistleblowers. Third, a new regime that limits which documents can be classified as secret. Fourth, a properly functioning Freedom of Information system. Fifth, exemptions for journalists from legislation, including recent anti-terrorism and security laws, that would put them in jail for doing their jobs. Sixth, defamation law reform, including standardisation between jurisdictions, upgrades to cover digital news reports and social media posts, and effective summary dismissal procedures.

The inquiry cannot address the breadth of concerns at play. We hope the Morrison government is not merely paying lip service to these issues, ultimately invoking the bogey of national security to stymie urgent reform. As we have argued in this space at length, this is not an issue about journalists’ anxiety, media profitability or giving reporters a status to break laws that other citizens must obey. The laws are flawed and we are the targets — unwitting, some would say, but we are in the reality business — and this has a chilling effect on the free flow of information. News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller told the inquiry yesterday the many laws criminalising journalism are “creating a secret society that most Australians would not recognise as ours”. “We may not be living in a police state but we are living in an ever-increasing state of secrecy,” he said. These provisions stop us from knowing what governments are doing in our name, with our money. For all the official sentiments about freedom, these laws are eroding our democracy.


The Propaganda Ministry Known as The Free Press

The Propaganda Ministry Known as The Free Press  By Paul Craig Roberts, humanarefree.com, 14 July 2019

As I have reported on many occasions, the presstitutes constitute not a free press but a Ministry of Propaganda for the government and ruling oligarchic interests. 

Ben Norton explains that the New York Times gets permission from Washington before it prints a story:

The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its stories to the US government for approval from “national security officials” before publication.

He explains that CIA control and manipulation of the media has a long tradition, a tradition exposed by journalists who know:
Legendary journalist Carl Bernstein, a former Washington Post reporter who helped uncover the Watergate scandal, published a major cover story for Rolling Stone in 1977 titled “The CIA and the Media: How America’s Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up.”

Bernstein obtained CIA documents that revealed that more than 400 American journalists in the previous 25 years had “secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Bernstein wrote:

“Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services — from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go?betweens with spies in Communist countries.

“Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without?portfolio for their country.

“Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring?do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full?time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.”

Virtually all major US media outlets cooperated with the CIA, Bernstein revealed, including ABC, NBC, the AP, UPI, Reuters, Newsweek, Hearst newspapers, the Miami Herald, the Saturday Evening Post, and the New York Herald?Tribune.

However, he added, “By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.”

These layers of state manipulation, censorship, and even direct crafting of the news media show that, as much as they claim to be independent, The New York Times and other outlets effectively serve as de facto spokespeople for the government — or at least for the US national security state.

Udo Ulfkotte, an editor of the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, explained in his book, Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought Journalism), that no significant journalist in Europe is free of CIA influence.

The English language edition, Journalists For Hire: How The CIA Buys The News, has been suppressed. A few copies managed to escape destruction. Two are currently available on Amazon, one for $910.99 and one for $1,994.99.

As I have often reported, in the “Western democracies” truth is suppressed and controlled explanations are put in its place. Western peoples are largely unaware of the agendas of the national security state and ruling elites.

People in all walks of life serve these agendas without knowing it. Those who try to inform them are usually dismissed as “conspiracy theorists.” Obviously, there can be no democracy when the electorate is kept in the dark.


Previous articles

    • pauling-hansons-first-speech-in-the-senate-14-september-2016
    • cairns-post-editorial-201016  Laws of diminishing returns as the ‘nanny state’ takes over control of our freedom, By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 20 October 2016

About Peter Senior

I'm a very experienced and pragmatic management consultant. I've reviewed and led the restructuring of many organisations - large and small corporations and Government Departments, much of the time as President of the New Zealand Institute of Management Consultants. Before that I was General Manager of a major NZ newspaper; earlier, an analyst for IBM UK. I gained an honours degree in engineering at London University, and studied management at Cambridge University. This wide range of experience has left me frustrated: I continue to see too many examples of really bad management. Sometimes small easily fixed issues; sometimes fundamental faults; and sometimes really tricky problems. Mostly these issues can be fixed using a mixture of common sense, 'management 101' and applying lessons from years of management experience. Unfortunately, all too often, politics, bureaucracy and daft government regulations get in the way; internal factors such as poor culture and out-of-date strategies are often evident. So what's gone wrong, and why, and most importantly, how to fix 'it'? I hope there are like-minded people 'out there' who will share their thoughts enabling 'us' to improve some significant management failures that affect the general public. If you just accept bad management, you don't have the right to complain! If you'd like to share thoughts on any aspects of management, send me an email to petersenior42@gmail.com . My latest project has the interim title 'You’ve been conned. Much of what you were taught and read is largely irrelevant, misleading or plain wrong – this is the REAL story of life: past, present and our possible future.' The working paper so far comprises 105 pages, many listing references and interim conclusions. The main problem is finding sufficient credible evidence, and realising the more Iearn, the more I realise I don't know!
This entry was posted in Better Government. Bookmark the permalink.