DISSIDENTS THE WEST WORSE THAN THE SOVIET BLOC

DISSIDENTS THE WEST WORSE THAN THE SOVIET BLOC

FREE SYNDICATION: We are partners not rivals. Reprint our news stories to quickly build your news platforms.

We’re used to Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Saudi Arabian dissidents. However, the most notorious deniers of free speech are found under upturned rocks in the West.

assange

Investigative journalist Julian Assange sought sanctuary in London’s tiny Ecuadorian embassy in 2012. The whistle-blower refuses to be silenced. The Australian has been awarded more than a dozen journalism awards. Once evicted under a dodgy-deal, blackmail and bribery, Assange faces life imprisonment, perhaps a death sentence.

Thanks to a clerical error by the U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria, Virginia, the existence of sealed criminal charges against the Wikileaks founder has been confirmed.

If wars start by lies they can be stopped by truth

What is typically left out is that Wikileaks originally released the diplomatic cables in piecemeal form, with names removed to prevent loss of life and minimize harm. It was only after a Guardian journalist’s error led to the full legally edited cables leaking to third parties on the web that Wikileaks also published them. Assange even attempted to warn the office of Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State.

Julian Assange

In other words, Wikileaks behaved precisely as any responsible journalist would in handling sensitive material should by removing information that could cause harm. The removals stopped only when they became pointless. The Pentagon later admitted under oath that they could not find any instances of individuals losing their lives as a result of being named in Manning’s leaks to Wikileaks.

When it comes to negligence a far stronger case can be made against Hillary Clinton for the way she handled State Department emails. Yet, no criminal charges have been laid against a woman mired in corruption and whose snail-trail lies over a score of corpses.

Assange is being targeted because he dared to challenge the western establishment but he is far from alone. Western governments routinely target scores of news reporting dissidents.

Sylvia Stolz 2

Imprisoned in Germany merely for investigating holocaust related fraud; Ursula Haverbeck (90), lawyer Sylvia Stolz, Music tutor Monika Schaeffer and her brother Alfred Schaeffer. In France, Professor Robert Faurisson, Brigitte Bardot, and Vincent Reynouard. The list of Western dissidents is as long and silent as are the names on the Cenotaph situated in Whitehall.

Moniker and Alfred 1

Any who associated with Julian Assange are pursued. Another well-known dissident is the National Security Agency (NSA) whistle-blower Edward Snowden. It was a time of globalist unease at the power of the internet to undermine authority.

! Petition

Who would have thought that the highest court in Europe would uphold a case in which a woman was prosecuted for blasphemy against Islam? Who would have thought that Britain, the supposed birthplace of liberalism and the free press would ban an independent journalist from its shores for satirising the same religion?

Free speech now a hate crime

Who would have thought that Germany, whose living memory of the totalitarian Stasi is just three decades old, would put its largest opposition party under surveillance? Just a few years ago, all three would sound far-fetched. But cases like these have become common as elites in virtually every western country mount a panicked attempt to contain the rise of populism.

! Tommy, one of these men is in gaol

A case in point is Tommy Robinson, the British critic of Islam who was dragged through Britain’s courts on fuzzy contempt-of-court charges. Sentenced to an astounding thirteen-month imprisonment, Robinson was eventually freed after a successful appeal. Robinson now awaits a final trial before Britain’s Attorney General. Shaky charges that have been successfully appealed were exploited to persecute a British citizen who was inconvenient to the establishment.

DSC_0745

Alison Chabloz is endlessly re-cycled through British courts at the urging of Jewish special interest groups. She has been sentenced, fined and ordered to work for the State without charge.

Jez Renegade picture

Her crime, she satirises the spin of World War II propagandists. Again in Britain, Jez Turner is sentenced to 12 months in prison merely for publicly stating that Britain’s regime is overly influenced by Zionists; ironically, Zionists boast much the same thing.

me 1

In the self-styled cradle of democracy, one of the last European countries to give voting rights to men and women, Michael Walsh was handed down 6 x 4-month prison sentences for publishing fliers critical of immigration.

BRITAIN-US-INTELLIGENCE-SNOWDEN

 

Britain routinely bans foreign politicians and media figures from the country for being right-wing.  Michael Savage, Geert Wilders, Lauren Southern, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer all enjoy this dubious distinction. Theresa May, who was responsible for internal affairs and immigration when Spencer and Geller were banned, is the Prime Minister.

Trump’s White House, supposedly an ally of populists, failed to intervene on behalf of the American citizens banned from the U.K. for expressing populist viewpoints.

Assange and shitheead

Julian Assange, a leftist oriented libertarian may share little ideological ground with right-wing critics of Islam. But they all share at least one thing: persecution by the Western States coupled with anti-establishment political speech or activities.

We also see attacks on free speech, with governments and politicians across the West pressuring Silicon Valley to suppress its critics. These toxic unaccountable, unelected elite can sweep away a person’s livelihood in minutes, and cut their political message off from millions of American citizens.  PayPal, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook routinely disconnect the accounts of even small ‘c’ conservatives.

sneaky_paypal

Undeniably, the West is as repressive as was the former Soviet Bloc. Who would have thought that countries like Ecuador, Russia, and Iran would offer sanctuary, safe passage and freedom to speak to Western dissidents; journalists, authors, poets, writers, libertarians and political activists?

Edward Snowden faces life in Russia as an exile for revealing the National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance of Americans. Before that, he sought refuge in Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

Western_Dissidents_Assange_Snowden_Robinson_Wilde

 

 

IHR Director Mark Weber Banned From Britain

IHR Director Mark Weber Banned From Britain

Theresa May’s 2015 Order Cites Alleged Quotes That a Major Newspaper Now Acknowledges Were Inaccurate or DistortedNews from Institute for Historical Review
January 2018 (Updated)


Weber speaking at the April 2015
‘London Forum’ Meeting

Mark Weber, an American historian and director of the Institute for Historical Review, was banned from Britain in April 2015 by order of Theresa May, who is now the country’s Prime Minister. The decision to ban him was “taken personally” by May while she was serving as Home Secretary, Britain’s Home Office has acknowledged.

As justification for the ban, her order cites three statements allegedly made by Weber, as reported in a sensational article in Britain’s Mail on Sundaynewspaper. After the exclusion order was issued, the paper publicly acknowledged that the first of the three statements attributed to Weber was never made by him, and that a portion of the second statement was likewise not by him.

Moreover, the second and third statements cited in the order are distortions of remarks Weber had made at a “London Forum” meeting on April 11, 2015 – as he explained in a letter to the Home Office of Jan. 9, 2018. (Full text below). That letter is a response to a Home Office letter to Weber of Dec. 22, 2017, and a Home Office file letter of April 29, 2015. (Facsimiles below.)


Theresa May
Home Secretary in 2015, and now Prime Minister

The text of Weber’s address, titled “The Danger and Challenge of Jewish-Zionist Power,” is posted on the IHR website, along with an audio recording. A video of the talk is posted on YouTube.

The “London Forum” gathering, which drew an audience of more than a hundred, received extensive but hostile coverage in major British newspapers, as well as by Jewish news services. Although media reports called the event a gathering of “Holocaust deniers,” in fact not a single one of the speakers at the meeting spoke about the Holocaust, or said anything that could be considered “Holocaust denial.”

London’s Metropolitan Police Force looked into the talks by Weber and the other speakers, and decided that what they said “does not reach the threshold for a criminal investigation,” the London Daily Express reported. The news that Weber and the other speakers “would go unpunished provoked outrage in the Jewish community,” the Express also noted. A spokesman for the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” organization, the paper reported, said that the “speakers should have been barred from the UK.”

“The decision to ban me from the UK,” says Weber, “was based on inaccurate, untrue or distorted claims from a sensational and hostile second-hand report. British authorities made no effort to check the accuracy of the statements cited to justify this ‘McCarthyite’ ban.”

“If authorities in, say, Russia or Poland or China, were to ban peaceful UK citizens from entering those countries on the basis of similarly sensational and inaccurate reports,” Weber adds, “British politicians and media commentators would understandably protest and voice their outrage.”

The current government of Prime Minister Theresa May is one of the most ardently pro-Zionist in British history. In a speech on Nov. 4, 2017, for example, she praised and defended the notorious Balfour Declaration of 1917, by which Britain pledged to support the Zionist campaign to establish a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine. That Declaration is widely regarded as a blatant betrayal by Britain of its often-proclaimed devotion to the principles of democracy and self-determination.

In April and May 2015 Weber persistently urged the Mail on Sunday to correct at least the most egregious errors about him in its report on the “London Forum” meeting. After exchanges of e-mail messages by Weber with the paper’s managing editor, John Wellington, and a face-to-face talk with Peter Sheridan, the paper’s correspondent in California, the Mail on Sunday in late May or early June 2015 added a “correction” footnote to its posted report that acknowledged that it had inaccurately attributed at least two quotations to Weber — quotations that were cited in the UK ban against him.

Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), an independent educational and publishing center that works to promote peace, understanding and justice through greater public awareness of the past, and especially socially-politically relevant aspects of modern history. It is recognized by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) public interest, educational, not-for-profit enterprise. Founded in 1978, the IHR is non-partisan, non-ideological, and non-sectarian. Its offices are in Orange County, southern California.

Mark Weber holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in history. In 1988 he testified for five days in Toronto District Court as a recognized expert on Germany’s World War II Jewish policy.

Weber first learned that he was banned from the UK on Sept. 23, 2017, at the international airport of Madrid, Spain, as he was about to board a flight to London’s Heathrow airport for a lay-over of a few hours before getting a connecting flight to return home to California. He was obliged to pay hundreds of dollars to arrange belated alternative flights back to the US.

After his return home, Weber wrote letters to relevant British agencies, including the Home Office, to learn more about the ban. It was not until January 4, 2018, that he received letters from the Home Office explaining just how and on what basis he had been barred from entering the UK.

The UK government routinely bans visitors “if their presence would not be conducive to the public good.” Although British authorities will not say just who is on its list of “excluded” persons, it is known that Edward Snowden, Martha Stewart, Louis Farrakhan, Pamela Geller, Michael Savage and Geert Wilders are among those who have been banned.


Mark Weber

P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 Tel. 714 -593 9725 E-mail: weber@ihr.org(link sends e-mail)January 9, 2018

Ref.: W1993505

Home Office
P. O. Box 1922
Croydon, Surrey CR90 9DD
England – UK

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your recently-received letter of Dec. 22, 2017 (copy enclosed) in response to my letters to the Home Office of October 5 and November 6, 2017. I also appreciate that you enclosed a copy of your letter or notice of April 29, 2015 (copy enclosed), which explains how and on what basis the decision was made to exclude me from the UK.

In your April 2015 letter, three statements attributed to me are cited as reason or grounds for the decision. You then write: “The Home Secretary considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK you would continue to espouse such views. In doing so, you would be committing listed behaviours and would therefore be behaving in a way that is not conducive to the public good.”

My main purpose in writing today is to explain that the decision to exclude me from the UK was based on second-hand information that is, at least in part, inaccurate, untrue or distorted.

The first of the three statements attributed to me in your April 2015 letter is this: “The Holocaust is a religion. Its underpinnings in the realm of historical fact are non-existent – no Hitler order, no plan, no budget, no gas chambers, no autopsies of gassed victims, no bones, no ashes, no skulls, no nothing.”

In fact, I never wrote or uttered those words, and I do not agree with them.

No source, or even a date, is given for this statement. To the best of my knowledge, it was first (inaccurately) attributed to me some years ago by the “Anti-Defamation League,” an influential US-based Jewish-Zionist organization.

The second of the three statements attributed to me in your April 2015 letter is this: “The Jewish connection covers all areas and reaches every level. Most Americans may not even sense this gigantic effort, but there is scarcely a Jew who is not touched by its tentacles. In reality, the Jewish hold on American life is far more dangerous. Why? Jews in America have a strong loyalty to a foreign country – Israel. Secondly, because of the distrustful and sometimes adversarial way in which Jews view the rest of us. This ‘chosen people’ mindset, this ‘Us vs Them’ attitude, is anchored in centuries of Jewish history and heritage.”

As your April 2015 letter makes clear, this statement, as well as the third one you cite, were attributed to me in an item, headlined “Nazi Invasion of London Exposed,” that appeared in the Mail on Sunday of April 18, 2015, which sensationally reported on a talk I gave at a meeting in London one week earlier. As your April 2015 letter notes, this item is posted online athttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3045115/Nazi-invasion-London-EXPOSED-World-s-Holocaust-deniers-filmed-secret-race-hate-Jews-referred-enemy.html

The first two sentences of the second statement are actually not by me. As I made clear in my London talk, those two sentences were quotations from The Zionist Connection, a detailed study by Jewish-American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal, issued by Dodd, Mead, a respected New York publisher.

The remainder of that second statement, as well as the third statement attributed to me in your April 2015 letter, are likewise distortions of remarks I made in my address at that London meeting.

The full text of my London talk is posted at: http://ihr.org/other/jewishzionistpower2015

A video of my April 2015 London address is posted online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEJ0UUIaxF0

I was so concerned by the errors and distortions in that Mail on Sunday report, on which you have relied, that in April 2015 I sent an e-mail message to managing editor John Wellington to ask him to correct at least the most blatant errors. I also met in person with Peter Sheridan, the Mail on Sundaycorrespondent in California, to gain his help in correcting errors about me in his paper.

After several exchanges of e-mail communications with both Wellington and Sheridan, and some delay, the Mail on Sunday in late May or early June added a “correction” footnote to its posted report acknowledging that it had inaccurately attributed to me at least two quotations – quotations cited by the Home Office as grounds for its exclusion decision. Of course, that online Mail on Sunday correction was made after the decision had already been made to exclude me from the UK.

Although you mention that there is no “statutory right of appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision,” I urge you to inform the appropriate authorities that the April 2015 decision to exclude me from the UK is based on second-hand information that is, at least in part, inaccurate, untrue or distorted. I further respectfully ask the appropriate authorities to reconsider and rescind the decision to exclude me from the UK.

Sincerely,

Mark Weber

Edward Snowden Warns Canadians To Be ‘Extraordinarily Cautious’ Over Anti-Terror Bill

Edward Snowden Warns Canadians To Be ‘Extraordinarily Cautious’ Over Anti-Terror Bill

The Huffington Post Canada  |  By

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden addressed students at a Toronto private school via video link on Monday to warn about the perils of being complacent as the government makes sweeping changes to Canada’s anti-terrorism laws.

“I would say we should always be extraordinarily cautious when we see governments trying to set up a new secret police within their own countries,” Snowden said in alivestream feed from Russia. He made reference to Bill C-51, legislation tabled by the Conservative government days earlier.

More than 900 students attended the talk titled, “Privacy vs. Security: A Discussion of Personal Privacy in the Digital Age” hosted at Upper Canada College. Nearly 1,400 watched the live broadcast online.

Snowden urged the audience to be adept at lining up facts versus rhetoric with emergency legislations born from times of “fear and panic.” He added though Canada is not unique in its anti-terrorism laws and surveillance programs, it’s important to be critical toward political arguments championing their necessity.

“Once we let these power get rolling it’s very difficult to stop that pull through,” Snowden said. “So I would say that we need to use extraordinary scrutiny in every society, in every country, in every state to make sure that the laws we live under are the ones we truly want and truly need.”

Journalist Glenn Greenwald was also on hand for the keynote via conference call.

Using ‘fearmongering’ as vehicle for legislation

Despite the sharp uptick in terrorism rhetoric after two Canadian soldiers were killed within days of each other last year by “radicalized” attackers, the former Guardian journalist says a Canadian’s real-world chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is “infinitesimal.”

“If you are a Canadian citizen, you have a greater chance of dying by being struck by lightning; or by going to a restaurant and eating a meal that will give you an intestinal disease; or by slipping in your bathtub, hitting your head on the ceramic tile than you do dying in a terrorist attack,” said Greenwald.

He criticized what he sees as the Conservative government’s tactic of using fear to untether the weight of public scrutiny to push the anti-terrorism measures into law. “Your government continuously hypes the threat and tells you that unless you give it more and more power it will be incapable of saving you from this threat,” he said.

“And this fearmongering is a very dangerous, yet very effective form of persuading people to submit to things you otherwise wouldn’t submit to.”

New anti-terrorism measures ‘more about politics’

On Friday, the Harper government tabled its much-anticipated anti-terrorism legislation designed to give Canadian security and intelligence services more powers and more flex from the RCMP.

If passed into law, changes would see the standard of evidence needed to obtain warrants lowered. Police would also be given authority to extend the amount of time they can detain someone without charge if that person is suspected to be involved in terrorist activity.

“Jihadist terrorism is not a future possibility, it is a present reality,” Harper said at the announcement. “It seeks to harm us here in Canada, in our cities and in our neighbourhoods through horrific acts.”

The measures are intended to curb nine interpretations of “activities that undermine the security of Canada” — including a broadly-worded clause criminalizing any “interference with the capability of the government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada.”

But the omnibus legislation isn’t bringing peace of mind to one prominent Ottawa-based human rights and civil liberties lawyer.

Paul Champ told The Hill Times the election-year timing of the bill utilizes it as a “political wedge issue of sorts” that has already tempered NDP and Liberals reaction to be “in kind” than “taking a principled stand on civil liberties.”

“I think it’s clear both from the manner of the prime minister’s announcement, and unfortunately the response of the opposition parties, that this bill is far more about politics than public safety,” Champ said.

Reporters were supplied information about the anti-terror bill in a controlled media briefing a day before the legislation was announced by the prime minister at a Toronto-area community centre.

Harper was joined by Justice Minister Peter MaKay, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, and associate National Defence Minister Julian Fantino at the Jan. 30 event.

“They’ve been creeping over that line from surveillance to operational for some time,” Champ said. “Now we see it confirmed in legislation.”

With files from The Canadian Press

Read a copy of Bill C-51 here:

Bill C-51: Tories’ Anti-Terrorism Bill