SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
free speech
'Can't Make This Up': Journalist Arrested Under UK Anti-Terror Law Hours After Criticizing It
"I criticized the Terrorism Act before getting on the plane, then got arrested under the Terrorism Act upon landing."
Aug 21, 2024
Richard Medhurst, a Syrian-British independent journalist who defends Palestinians' right to resist Israeli apartheid, occupation, and other crimes, said this week that he was recently arrested at London's Heathrow Airport and held for nearly 24 hours for allegedly running afoul of a highly controversial anti-terrorism law critics say is used to silence legitimate dissent.
Medhurst—who is known for his work opposing U.S., British, and Israeli war crimes in the Middle East and for his advocacy for formerly imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange—said on social media Tuesday: "I criticized the Terrorism Act before getting on the plane, then got arrested under the Terrorism Act upon landing. Can't make this up."
In a nearly nine-minute video posted Monday night on X, the social network formerly known as Twitter, Medhurst said that "on Thursday, as I landed in London Heathrow Airport, I was immediately escorted off the plane by six police officers who were waiting for me at the entrance of the aircraft."
"They arrested me—not detained—they arrested me under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 and accused me of allegedly 'expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organization,' but wouldn't explain what this meant," he continued.
The controversial law criminalizes anyone who "invites support for a proscribed organization" or "expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive" of such a group. Violators can be punished with up to 14 years' imprisonment and a fine.
As Laura Tiernan explained Tuesday at World Socialist Web Site:
Introduced by [former U.K. Prime Minister] Tony Blair's Labour government, the act is a legal dragnet. In Medhurst's case, it appears that commentary defending the right of Palestinians under international law to resist foreign military occupation and genocide is being defined as support for terrorism.
Hamas is among the organizations proscribed as terrorist by the U.K. government. While its military wing was proscribed in 2001, Hamas was banned in its entirety in 2021, aimed at criminalizing support for the Palestinian people. The political wing of Hamas won elections held in Gaza in 2006 and the organization also oversees charitable work.
Medhurst said: "I categorically and utterly reject all the accusations by the police. I am not a terrorist. I have no criminal record. Prior to this incident, I'd never been detained in my entire life."
"I'm a product of the diplomatic community, and I'm raised to be anti-war," he explained. "Both of my parents won Nobel Peace Prizes for their work as United Nations peacekeepers. They had a tremendous effect on my worldview and outlook and instilled in me the importance of diplomacy, international law, and peace."
Medhurst said he was searched, handcuffed, and taken in a police van to a station where he was searched again, fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in solitary confinement. His phone and work equipment were seized. When he questioned why he'd been arrested, "the police would say something like: 'Well, we're just the arresting officers. We don't really know.'"
"No one in the world knew what had happened to me or where I was," he said. "I had to ask like four or five different guards for several hours until I finally received a call. In total, I spent almost 24 hours in detention. At no point whatsoever was I allowed to speak to a family member or a friend. After waiting 15 hours, I was finally interviewed by two detectives."
"I felt that the whole process was designed to humiliate, intimidate, and dehumanize me and treat me like a criminal, even though they must've been aware of my background and that I'm a journalist," Medhurst alleged. He contended that his arrest was "done on purpose to try and rattle me psychologically," and noted that "many people have been detained in Britain because of their connection to journalism."
He named Assange—who was freed in June following a plea deal with the U.S. government—as well as Scottish author Craig Murray, Grayzone correspondent Kit Clarenberg, and Glenn Greenwald's late partner, Brazilian politician David Miranda, as people who have been targeted for their political beliefs and expression.
"Freedom of the press, freedom of speech really are under attack," Medhurst warned in the video. "The state is cracking down and escalating to try and stop people from speaking out against our government's complicity in genocide."
Israel is currently on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice over its 320-day assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians, wounded at least 93,000 others, starved hundreds of thousands more, and obliterated the coastal enclave.
"We cannot call ourselves a democracy as long as reporters are dragged off of planes and detained and treated like murderers," Medhurst concluded. "I am disgusted that I am being politically persecuted in my own country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Elon Musk Doesn't Know He's on the Wrong Side of George Orwell
The level of power and influence the world's richest man has amassed is a danger to all citizens, whether they like Musk or not. It is also, without a shadow of a doubt, a threat to democracy.
Aug 21, 2024
The following is the English translation of an essay that first appeared in the Swedish publication Dagens ETC and appears at Common Dreams with permission from the author.
Elon Musk is perhaps one of the purest examples in recent years of the conversion of raw economic power into informational, social, and political power. What makes Musk such a dangerous figure is those various forms of power combined with his willingness to openly lie about his personal and corporate relationships to issues of free speech and democracy.
The level of power and influence he has amassed is a danger to all citizens, whether they like Musk or not. It is also, without a shadow of a doubt, a threat to democracy.
After the riots that broke out in the UK following the murder of three young children in the town of Southport, a number of social media users were arrested and charged in relation to those riots. Musk amplified tweets that claimed the use of the law in this manner was “Orwellian.” In other words, a repressive state was cracking down on citizens for little more than expressing their opinions or thinking in the wrong way. But that argument hid the fact that many of those arrested were charged under UK law with inciting both violence and racial hatred: forms of speech rightly illegal in many countries.
Nevertheless, in “1984” terms Musk pitched himself as standing alongside the Winston Smiths of this world in battle against the Big Brothers. As the defender of the rights of the “ordinary person” in the face of a violent, elite, repressive machine.
You could cut the irony with a knife.
Musk’s rhetoric on free speech and democracy, and the willingness of so many of his followers to accept that rhetoric despite the obvious contradictions, is a perfect example of “doublethink.”
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, bought a communication platform that enables him to control information and messaging across the globe. With that platform he also gathers huge amounts of data on users. He uses his position to advocate for political candidates and political agendas he supports and cooperates with various authoritarian regimes to shut down messages and accounts critical of their power. His company literally pays individuals whose accounts spread and amplify proven disinformation, and has himself spread and amplified proven disinformation. He throttled access to news outlets he disagreed with. He threatened to sue individuals and organizations that have been nothing more than critical of his own communication platform and other business dealings. When advertisers decide that they no longer wish to spend money on his platform because of increasing levels of disinformation and hate speech, he threatened to sue them as well.
There is something Orwellian going on here, but not in the way Musk claims.
In “1984” Orwell came up with the term “doublethink” to refer to how the exercise of pure authoritarian power includes getting people to believe two things at the same time, even if those two things are in direct contradiction. The most classic examples from the book being the expressions War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.
Musk’s rhetoric on free speech and democracy, and the willingness of so many of his followers to accept that rhetoric despite the obvious contradictions, is a perfect example of “doublethink.”
With Musk, we see enormous economic, informational and political power in the hands of the richest man in the world. There is no rational argument for how such a situation cannot and will not damage informed citizenship and democracy in the long run.
Musk is the defender of free speech and democracy who censors opponents of authoritarian regimes. Musk is the advocate of free and open debate who sues people who criticize his platform. Musk is the lover of the free market who threatens to take advertisers who won’t give him money to court. Musk is the defender of workers who actively fights organized labor.
As an academic, I realize that my criticism of Musk will likely be dismissed along ideological grounds. But I can tell you that academics have been warning about the dangers of excessive concentration of private and corporate mainstream media ownership for decades, and that criticism was in relation to all media, including mainstream outlets people call “left-wing.” We warned that power would continue to concentrate and that the damage to democracy could be severe. Yet, when we made those warnings, mainstream journalists, editors and owners largely dismissed them as out of touch and irrelevant. What do academics know of the real world?
Well, here we are now with Musk.
With Musk, we see enormous economic, informational and political power in the hands of the richest man in the world. There is no rational argument for how such a situation cannot and will not damage informed citizenship and democracy in the long run. By his actions Musk has shown no indication that he has no real interest in freedom of speech or ordinary working people. This should be of grave concern to all citizens regardless of their political inclination.
Orwell, a social democrat, was ahead of his time in anticipating the use of technology in surveillance and disinformation in the service of power. Musk is right that Orwell is relevant to today’s society. He’s just wrong about what side of the fight he is on.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Forcing Democrats to Confront the Gaza Genocide in Chicago
Ahead of the DNC, the Arab American Institute and other prominent progressive groups are hosting three days of programming on Palestinian rights and U.S. support for Israel.
Aug 12, 2024
Democrats are approaching their 2024 convention aware of the many critical issues at stake in this election. There is deep concern with what a second Trump administration would mean for women’s rights, civil rights, environmental protections, immigration policy, civil discourse, and the very foundation of our democratic order. All of these issues and more are discussed at length in the 2024 Democratic Party Platform and will be addressed by an assortment of speakers at the convention.
What will not be discussed are: the genocide that has been unfolding in Gaza, the continued erosion of Palestinian rights in all the Occupied Territories, and the role the United States continues to play in supporting Israel’s unconscionable violations of international law and U.S. human rights legislation. These are topics that should be addressed, but because they won’t, the Arab American Institute (AAI), together with Rev. Jesse Jackson’s RainbowPUSH organization and a number of other prominent progressive groups, are hosting three days of programs during the afternoon hours of Monday through Wednesday before the convention’s official proceedings begin. The topics that will be explored during these AAI events are:
- “The Role of Dark Money in Politics.” We’ll discuss how pro-Israel groups spent in excess of $35 million dollars this year to smear and defeat two progressive black members of Congress who had advocated for Palestinian rights. This problem of dark money has been a growing concern over the past three election cycles. Twice, in Democratic Party meetings, we have tried to pass resolutions banning its use in primary contests. In both instances, party leaders refused to even allow a debate on the issue. Our concern is that left unchecked the problem posed by dark money will grow and before long not only pro-Israel, but also other special interest groups (like big pharma, banks, health insurance, etc.) will similarly attempt to take advantage of the loophole that allows unlimited amounts of money to flood our elections.
- “The Role of Congress in Sponsoring Legislation that Silences Free Speech.” Just as the U.S. policy debate over Israel/Palestine has intensified, pro-Israel groups have worked with some members of Congress and state legislators to silence voices and penalize actions that are critical of Israel. By expanding the definition of antisemitism to include most criticisms of Israel and by denying Americans the right to boycott or call for sanctions against any country for any reason, free speech is being constrained or outright denied. At this point over three dozen states have passed these laws and Congress is currently debating legislation that will not only conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but also require universities and other institutions receiving federal funds to establish enforcement mechanisms.
- “The Voices of Palestinians Who Should Be Heard.” After 40,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of Gaza laid waste, and famine on the horizon, Democrats need to hear and listen to Palestinians. If the convention won’t invite them, they will be at the AAI event so they can tell their story.
- “An Examination of What’s Not Included in The Democratic Party’s Platform.” Arab Americans and those concerned with justice in the Middle East have been waging battles to shape the political parties’ positions on Israel/Palestine. We’ll look at what’s changed and what hasn’t changed during the past four decades. Forty years ago, we couldn’t get the word “Palestinians” in the platform. Now it’s in the Democrats’ platform, but neither party will include the word occupation or any criticism of Israeli policies. That must change.
- “The Role the Gaza War Is Playing in Changing Public Opinion and Its Impact on the Future of the Democratic Party.” Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza has become central to the agenda of progressives in the Democratic Party. Polls show that majorities of Democrats are opposed to Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza, want a cease-fire and a conditioning of U.S. aid to Israel, and support justice and rights for Palestinians. These numbers are largely driven by young voters; progressive Jewish groups; and Black, Latino, and Asian, and Arab Americans, all of whom are important to Democratic victories.
In addition to the three-day AAI event, there will be other events hosted by groups seeking to pressure the establishment to change direction on a variety of Issues of concern. But AAI’s is the only one that will challenge the party to confront “the elephant in the room”: our unquestioning support for Israel in its unrelenting genocidal war on Palestinians. It’s an issue that the majority of Democrats want the party to discuss and a policy they want the administration to change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular