How civic participation and independent thinking are being sold as dark arts

First published at

Sign up to the Looking Glass newsletter here

More pearl clutching from ‘misinformation experts’ over the freedom community’s political engagement.

One of VFF’s memes ahead of last week’s local body election. The professional and organised nature of the freedom movement has media actors very concerned.

Pathologising dissent has been a perennial theme at The Looking Glass, but now media actors are moving beyond targeting pesky protestors and dissidents to cast a shadow over entirely pedestrian activities.

Activists in the freedom movement are now being called by MSM journalists and their ‘experts’, ‘the misinformation and disinformation community’.

Yes, the biggest purveyors of actual mis-and-disinformation are in a panic about people who have come to different conclusions about this whole covidian clusterf**k. It all has a very McCarthyite undertone. ‘Reds under the bed’ is now conspiracy theorists attacking woke tropes, with some good old Russophobia thrown in for good measure.

Two examples from the last two weeks are salient. First, the head of journalism at Auckland University of Technology penned an op-ed in favour of ditching the right of reply for groups pushing back against government overreach. Second, an academic from the Orwellian ‘The Disinformation Project’ described normal civic participation by members of the freedom movement – an interest in voting for representatives who reflect their values – as something the wider public needs to be fearful of.

Derangement syndrome on steroids

In his op-ed, titled Fury under fire: anti-vax complaints loom over documentary, Treadwell says journalists have a duty not to empower lies and propaganda.

Well I would generally agree – but reporters and editors have spent that last two and half years peddling the most egregious and obvious lies and propaganda put out by governments. It has been appalling to watch, and worse because parsing the actual facts is not particularly hard to do.

When people with enough nous to smell a rat began to speak up, the establishment rounded on them like a pack of wolves, labelling them conspiracy theorists and mis-informants and has continued this campaign relentlessly ever since.

But what is startling about Treadwell’s piece is that he actually advocates for ditching long standing rules of journalism. Rules put in place to ensure the public is in a position to take an educated view of an issue, because they have received a balance of information.

This new ‘ethos’ started in the Trump years and came to be known as Trump Derangement Syndrome. Essentially the democratic establishment in the US, and the liberal media globally abandoned journalistic norms in favour of activism in order to destroy Trump.

Now, I am no fan of Trump, a narcissistic opportunist at best, but he is quite far down my personal shit list. I am even willing to give him credit for the occasional moment of lucidity, while recalling that he was also responsible for Operation Warp Speed, the disastrous programme to fast track the covid jab rollout.

But his Presidency broke a lot of people’s brains, and the liberal media allowed themselves to become completely de-moored from bedrock principles of journalism in order to oust him.

Recently, liberal pundit Sam Harris laid this bare in an interview with the UK’s Triggernometry, in which he shamelessly admitted the liberal media conspired to bury the Hunter Biden laptop story so that Trump would not be re-elected. He went so far as to say Hunter Biden could have murdered children in his basement and it would still have been the right thing to do to keep Trump from another term in office.

The lead journalist on Stuff’s hit piece film Fire and Fury, Paula Penfold, more or less gave a nod to these new journalistic norms when she admitted they did not offer Voices for Freedom et al the right of reply.

We are now living an era where derangement syndrome has become the dominant mindset of legacy media. Alarmism, fearmongering, omission and supression are acceptable if they produce a particular outcome.

Outrageously, Treadwell argued that the Media Council should not uphold the principle of ‘right of reply’ when it comes to grassroots activist group Voices for Freedom’s recent complaint about the Fire and Fury film, a group which has the support of well over 100,000 very normal, very average, everyday kiwis.

Treadwell wrote:

“Such a finding, despite any immediate logic to it, would be simply unthinkable.

“It would allow purveyors of disinformation to cast themselves even further as victims of the ‘mainstream media’ and perhaps even force Stuff to provide a platform for their mistruths and conspiracies.

“It would open the gate wider to proto-fascist movements seeking to pollute our public sphere and thereby wound our democracy.”

It’s worth reminding readers here that the so-called ‘misinformation and disinformation’ put out by groups like VFF is never identified, and always left intentionally vague so news consumers are not able to judge for themselves what might be the case.

And that a bunch of people who are trying to uphold freedom of speech, civil rights and the liberties democracies base themselves on are described as ‘proto-fascists’ is either intentionally deceitful or deeply ignorant. These values are the literal antithesis of fascism.

What is characteristic of fascism is the desire to control the information landscape totally – can you smell the hypocrisy here? It reeks.

I was grateful to see Sean Plunket enthusiastically challenge this thinking on The Platform (I’m not usually a fan, particularly of his disgraceful ‘nutter test’ and his recent rude interview with a whistleblower undertaker), while his colleague Ben Espiner wrote a great rebuttal here. Espiner says:

“I think we should be concerned about what our young journalists are learning about their role in a democracy from people like Treadwell. People who are supposed to be raising our next generation of reporters, yet appear increasingly to be abandoning their duty to convey the principles of balance and fairness in favour of drilling fear into their students over the entirely imagined danger of ‘platforming’ views they don’t like.”

Disinformation ‘experts’ attempt to stigmatise perfectly normal behaviour

The Disinformation Project’s Sanjana Hattotuwa said on Breakfast TV this week:

“The most interested in exercising their franchise, from what we study, come from the mis and disinformation communities. They are the most motivated, they are the most intentional, they do the most research and they really want to go out and vote and they are … by order of magnitude exceeding what we have studied are campaigns put out by LGNZ and the Vote 2022 Campaign … So it’s not good: they are instrumentalising the voter apathy and the most interested voting is coming from the mis and disinformation communities.”

Did you do a double take there? By exercising your political right to vote, you are taking advantage of all the people who don’t bother. It used to be considered a virtue to be motivated and informed, but now we’re told that this is ‘not good’.

I have said before mis and disinformation experts aren’t real experts on anything. They are propagandists in sheep’s clothing. A fake discipline, probably covertly funded by governments. The Disinformation Project is not upfront about its funding, but claims it is independent, while being linked to government funded Te Pūnaha Matatini (TPM) by its lead researcher, Kate Hannah, and publishing its non-peer reviewed papers on TPM letterhead.

The Disinformation Project has published papers on government funded TPM letterhead, but says it’s an independent research group and does not disclose its funding.

Earlier this year assistant professor at Uppsala University and propaganda expert Greg Simons, someone who has spent decades studying the machinations of political communications, said of The Disinformation Project:

“The project is run in a classic front-group style of information operation and influence activity. They attempt credibility by not disclosing their financial and political conflicts of interest. The underlying reason is that they want to be seen as being more credible at a time when the New Zealand government is increasingly (and rightly) seen as being less trustworthy and credible.”

Ardern’s free speech problem

The timing of these two pieces of commentary is interesting, and I do not believe coincidental, coming on the heels of two major signals from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern about the direction of travel. While in New York last month, Ardern announced she was heading up a global task force to tackle mis and disinformation, which was quickly followed by a remarkable speech at the UN, in which she claimed access to information online was a ‘weapon of war’, and called for a global censorship regime.

She has been widely criticised, mocked and derided abroad for her outrageous attacks on the bedrock of democracy, but the legacy media in New Zealand has only applauded her, and as we have seen, appear fully committed to her agenda.

Muriel Newman at Victoria University’s Centre for Political Research wrote an excellent critique this week, titled The New Face of Authoritariansm.

Newman remarked that the Prime Minister’s UN speech signalled how far she intends to go to control what Kiwis can and can’t see and read, by controlling internet algorithms, with the result that it will soon take a lot of effort and determination to find alternative, unofficial, views.

“What this means is that algorithms are being changed to ensure that internet searches no longer give you what you want, but what ‘they‘ want you to see. George Orwell’s age of Big Brother really has arrived. Its name is Jacinda Ardern.”

Grooming journalists

Following on from these global announcements, journalists are being targeted again with more misinformation propaganda.

The Disinformation Project has just announced in-person media resourcing sessions to be held early next month, in which journalists and producers are invited to discuss disinformation issues with the project team.

These sessions will follow Chatham House Rules, meaning what is said will remain undisclosed outside of the room, apparently in order to allow free and frank discussion.

The TDP sessions for journalists have a focus on disinformation and diversity – is a new narrative about to hit the headlines? One possibility is that the freedom movement, inconveniently broad-based – politically, socially and ethnically – will be sold to journalists as racist at some level. Or, perhaps the fact that it brought such a diversity of people together to stand up for their rights and freedoms will be used to push a narrative about how the ‘mis and disinformation community’ are exploiting people’s emotional weaknesses and need for belonging to ‘radicalise’ them. We’ll have to wait and see.

The sessions will be run with the support of the Science Media Centre, a global PR outfit that curates science stories and scientist comment for reporters, and also trains journalists on science reporting, thus majorly skewing science journalism towards corporate interests. It has had a very pernicious impact on science journalism in the last decade or so.

“A decreasing pool of time-pressed UK science journalists no longer go into the field and dig for stories. They go to pre-arranged briefings at the SMC … The quality of science reporting and the integrity of information available to the public have both suffered, distorting the ability of the public to make decisions about risk,” said Connie St Louis, director of the science journalism programme at City, University of London, back in 2013.

Yes, we really do have a new Pravda on our hands. Rather than interrogate The Disinformation Project about its funding and origins, I’m betting the legacy media will continue to legitimise it by regularly quoting its spokespeople and publicising its ‘research’.

Perhaps it’s unsurprising that such things are going on in New Zealand when the country’s leader is at the forefront of a global project to implement mass censorship. It makes one wonder whether Kiwis will be the first victims of Ardern’s experiments, the guineapigs? Hasn’t New Zealand often been the test case for global technology roll outs? Will we also be the first people in the west to have our access to information curbed and the right to speak our minds limited?

Fun times! Watch out for a volley of new ‘mis and disinformation’ reporting come November, with a ‘diversity’ twist.

Stay curious.

First published at

Sign up to the Looking Glass newsletter here

Holding the Line meets the Workers of England Union

Rusere Shoniwa interviews WEU General Secretary Stephen Morris

Watch the interview on HTL’s Odysee channel

The Workers of England Union (WEU) is quite possibly the only union in England to have robustly defended workers’ rights against no jab/no job policies following the Government’s coercive drive to maximise covid vaccine uptake. Such policies are clearly an affront to the basic rights of bodily autonomy, medical freedom and voluntary informed consent. It beggars belief that 75 years after Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg for violating this principle, governments across the world violated it all over again.

WEU has put itself on the right side of history by defending workers against the Government’s full-frontal assault on these basic human rights and, for that reason alone, I wanted to have a discussion with its General Secretary, Stephen Morris, about the battle that his union has fought for employees and what success it has had.

However, the WEU has also been associated with far-right politics owing to its association with the English Democrats, a party that is labelled as “far-right” by mainstream commentators. In addition to being the General Secretary of WEU, Stephen Morris is also the North West Area Chairman for the English Democrats.

I wanted to explore whether this characterisation of WEU as far-right is fair and to understand the extent, if any, to which WEU policy and operations are affected by the relationship of its General Secretary with the English Democrats. I also wanted to explore some potential contradictions between the union’s position on bodily autonomy and some of the English Democrats’ policy positions. I think it’s valid to explore this given that Stephen Morris straddles two roles as both head of WEU and a senior ranking member of the English Democrats.

Stephen Morris’s active participation in trade unionism began as a branch secretary for Unite in 2000, when he was working for Metrolink, Greater Manchester’s tram/light rail network. It was around this time that he started to question whether England needed its own Parliament as the Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh Assemblies were taking root. He also became disenchanted with what he saw as a lack of transparency in annual union pay negotiations: senior union representatives appeared to be doing deals with senior management behind closed doors and presenting them to the shop floor as a fait accompli.

As someone who identifies strongly with England and wants to advance its interests, Stephen had a brief flirtation with the Conservative Party but left it after concluding that English nationalism within the United Kingdom would not be advanced under that party. It was in 2009 that he joined the English Democrats, who were campaigning for the advancement of English interests within the Union of UK nations. Around this time, his disenchantment with the disconnect between the trade union hierarchy and its members led him to collaborate with a few like-minded colleagues to form the WEU.

WEU has been successful in fighting no jab/no job mandates mainly by exploiting technical breaches of employment law. As a result, its membership grew from slightly over 1,000 in 2019 to the current level of over 9,000 in 2022.

A key difference between WEU and other unions is that its union reps are not workers’ reps with employer line managers. They therefore avoid the conflicts that can arise when a union rep’s boss is also the boss of the employee with a grievance. On a nod and a wink, union reps can be given preferential workplace treatment that might colour their judgement when handling employee grievances. WEU reps are not connected in any way to the employer, which removes this type of conflict.

Hope Not Hate (HNH), a charity that claims to campaign against racism, has alleged that WEU is not a legitimate union but rather an association without any obvious benefits to its paying members. Stephen Morris responded that the claim is false. WEU has been a certified union since 2012 and is required to comply with the same regulations as all other trade unions. It submits annual audited accounts and reports to a certification body that is now its regulator since April. Stephen Morris asserts that WEU is subject to and complies with the same regulations as major unions like Unite, Unison and GMB.

HNH also assert that the English Democrats are “far right” and known for their anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim attitudes. Crucially, they claim that WEU is guilty by association. There are two strands to this that I asked Stephen Morris to respond to. First, are the WEU’s professional interactions with members affected by the political views, whatever they might be, of its management? Second what is his response to the claim that his party propagates distasteful far-right views?

On the first point, Stephen asserted that the union is run professionally, and the politics of its officials does not affect its representation of members. He says its workplace is like any other in which people of different political backgrounds leave their politics at the door in order to work together to deliver a professional service. As far as he is concerned, there are simply no grounds for assuming that the WEU is incapable of providing services independently of its managers’ personal political views.

My view is that, in the absence of any complaints by WEU members on this point, it’s hard to give credence to HNH’s allegations. To assume, without evidence (and HNH has not provided any), that HNH’s allegations are credible is to assume that WEU is somehow incapable of drawing a line between the professional service it offers to its members and the personal politics of its management. Bring me the evidence and I’ll change my mind.

You would also have to credulously accept other implausible scenarios such as WEU vetting members to ensure they shared the same political views as WEU management. Again, show me the evidence and I’ll change my mind.

On Stephen Morris’s personal political positioning within the English Democrats, he sees himself as being to the left of the party’s agenda, which, in his view, makes him a centrist in broader national political terms.

When pushed on whether the English Democrats can fairly be characterised as a far-right party, Stephen discussed the party’s evolution from initially absorbing BNP and EDL members in its early days, which he described as “unfortunate”. He claims these hardliners left the party after they realised that it was not branding itself as ethno-nationalist. Stephen Morris maintains that the Party’s manifesto has an emphasis on community and that several senior ranking Council members were not born in the UK. He says they are a party “for anyone who wants to live and work in England.”

He talked about England’s inclusivity and its history of absorbing immigration, not as something he regrets but as something which he sees as contributing to England’s character. That said, I expressed the view that the party’s manifesto, on my reading of it, seems to lay many of England’s problems squarely at the feet of immigrants. That looks very much like a form of scapegoating, the consequences of which could be quite ugly, as we know from the scapegoating of the unvaccinated. I asked Stephen how he reconciles the apparent moral contradiction of working for a union that doesn’t tolerate scapegoating of the unvaccinated and being active in a party that appears to scapegoat immigrants in its party manifesto language.

In response to this, Stephen Morris maintained that the party is not against immigration but that it wants controlled immigration. Hardly a radical position in today’s political landscape. Stephen recalled a video some years ago promoting England’s participation in the Commonwealth Games. It featured people from different backgrounds and ethnicities all training for the Games and ended with the slogan: “We are England.” Stephen said he wished that the English Democrats had produced that campaign for themselves.

When questioned on the prevalence of the term ‘indigenous English’ in the party’s manifesto and the implications for a potential preferencing of the rights of one group over another, Stephen asserted that the aim is not to suppress other cultures but to re-assert the right of English people to express nationalist sentiment in ways that have become taboo, such as displaying the Saint George’s cross.

I raised allegations made by Silkie Carlo of Big Brother Watch who, at a Left Lockdown Sceptics meeting earlier this year, said:

“I think pushing people to unions like the Workers of England Union is a bad idea. They’re run by people from a right-wing party … they’re against the Human Rights Act. They’re against equality law.”

Having already explored the whole “right-wing” issue, I was keen to focus on the alleged anti-Human Rights and anti-equality law position of the English democrats. Could scrapping the Human Rights Act be an act of self-sabotage by opening the door to legalising the scrapping of bodily autonomy and other rights foundational to individual liberty and workers’ rights? Here Stephen Morris claimed that the current Human Rights Act waters down England’s original Bill of Rights and that the English Democrats would seek to enact a Bill of Rights that would not diminish existing rights in any way.

On this point, Stephen said all the right things, but I remain sceptical of the intentions of any party that wants to fix something that isn’t broken. The devil will be in the detail, and I’ll make up my mind when there’s more detail.

On the question of cooperating across political lines Stephen stated emphatically:

“I’ll cooperate with anybody who’s there to protect the rights of the individual in employment, freedom of speech, bodily autonomy.”

He then recounted one of the strangest weeks he’d had in his time with WEU:

“I had two meetings. One was with a Muslim guy who was up for a disciplinary on free speech. And his issue was he wanted the abolition of Israel. And we defended his rights and he kept his job. And in the same week, I was representing a Jewish guy who had made derogatory comments about Islam … We kept them their jobs because at the end of the day, my job is to represent them and their rights.” Would I join the Workers of England Union on the strength of this interview with its General Secretary? Likely.

Watch the interview on HTL’s Odysee channel

Freelance journalist sends open email to UK MSM asking why they ignored Malhotra and jab film

Sad day as journalists held to account instead of holding people to account

From News Uncut

LAST week, News Uncut journalist and former executive of Sky and ITV Mark Sharman, released his film, Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion.

Produced in tandem with Oracle Films, it was an honest, heartbreaking and brutal documentary about people who have been injured or killed by the Covid jab.

It was also released at the same time that one of the UK’s leading cardiologists, Dr Aseem Malhotra, published his peer-reviewed investigation into the harms caused by the Covid jab. In it, he calls for the immediate halt of any further jabs, saying that, for anyone under the age of 70, they were doing more harm than good.

Dr Aseem Malhotra’s peer-reviewed study

In journalism, we call these two events ‘news stories’.

The basic teachings of what a news story should be – at entry level via the National Council for the Training of Journalists [NCTJ] – is this:

1: Interesting to the public

2: In the public interest

Number one needs no explaining other than whether the public would find a particularly story interesting.

A further explanation of a story being in the public interest is that: if it were not for the reporter, undisclosed information affecting the public that governments, companies and other powerful interests hold would remain hidden.

All of which leads us to the point. Not one mainstream media outlet – not one member of the once highly regarded UK Press – covered either Mark Sharman’s documentary, or Dr Malhotra’s peer reviewed paper.


So today, News Uncut has published an email sent to all editors of the UK’s national newspaper and main TV channels asking for a response.

How sad it is that journalists and news organisations, once relied upon to hold people to account – and who still boast and believe that they do hold people to account and are proud of their journalism – are now the ones being held to account themselves.

Here is the email in full:


Alison Phillips [Daily Mirror editor]

Tony Gallagher [The Times editor]

Katherine Viner [The Guardian editor]

Ted Verity [Daily Mail editor]

Victoria Newton [The Sun editor]

Chris Evans [The Daily Telegraph editor]

Gary Jones [Daily Express editor]

Jon Clark [Daily Star editor]

Oly Duff [The i editor]

Emma Tucker [The Sunday Times editor]

David Dillon [The Mail on Sunday editor]

Gemma Aldridge [The Sunday Mirror, Sunday People editor]

Allister Heath [The Sunday Telegraph editor]

David Wooding [The Sunday Express editor]

Paul Webster [The Observer editor]

Peter Lowe [Sky News managing editor]

John Ryley [Sky News head of news]

Tim Davie [BBC director general]

Michael Jermey [ITV head of news]

Louise Compton [Channel 4 director of news and current affairs]

Also sent to the Press Gazette

Dear editors,

I am a freelance journalist writing to you as the editor/news editor/head of news for one of the country’s most respected news organisations.

I’m writing a story on why not one national, mainstream media outlet covered two important news stories that both qualify under the tenet of:

1: Being interesting to the public

2: Being in the public interest

As I’m sure you pride yourself on your standards of journalism, I’m surprised that you have not covered the launch of the recent documentary released by former executive at Sky and ITV, Mark Sharman, entitled Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion.

And you would have seen and read Dr Aseem Malhotra’s peer-reviewed paper on the Covid injection and his calls to halt further injections with immediate effect, including his quote that, for anyone under the age of 70, these jabs are doing more harm than good. I’m surprised again that you did not cover this major news event.

I’m writing to all mainstream publishers that did not cover these ground-breaking events and I have several outlets looking to publish your responses on Wednesday evening. So please let me know by noon Wednesday, October 12 what your reasons are, or whether you do actually plan to cover these news stories.

And in this particular case, why you are no longer interested in being balanced and fair.

Thank you,

Oliver May

Follow News Uncut at

HTL interviews James Corbett

On the 5th October 2022, HTL welcomed back James Corbett for another discussion about his work and to get some insights into the current state of world geopolitics.

Watch the full interview on Odysee

James hosts and produces the very well-known and very well-respected Corbett Report. The Corbett Report is an independent, listener-supported alternative news source and an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. James himself is an award-winning investigative journalist who has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale. He has also delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science, at Ted-X-Groningen and at Rit-su-meikan University in Kyoto. The Corbett Report is essential viewing for an understanding of how the world works and how powerful institutions shape history.

In the interview with Rusere Shoniwa, James discussed one of his latest pieces of work – an epic three-part documentary series entitled False Flags: A Secret History of Al Qaeda. It takes you on a mind-blowing journey into the history that shaped geopolitics in the Middle East and gave birth to Al Qaeda. Crucially, it draws on a bank of evidence that is so rich in quality and depth that it leads ineluctably to the conclusion that 9/11 was a false flag event.

In reaching this conclusion, the documentary series unveils the true meaning of 9/11. In many respects, one can’t understand what is happening now unless we understand 9/11 – not just the evidential holes in the narrative but getting to the heart of how the deep state used 9/11 in its aftermath. This is crucial to the whole story because the reasons for 9/11 are unfolding right now. The ultimate goals of that project are continuously morphing. The terror suspects in 2001 all had Arabic names and came from faraway places in the Middle East. Today, if you disagree with the orthodoxy of the day and if you express that disagreement in ways that truly threaten the Government’s programme, you are the terrorist – a domestic terrorist. This is the route that governments in the formerly free world are going down with various forms of legislation to censor and criminalise dissent of all forms.

The conversation segues into a discussion of the geopolitical implications of the Ukraine conflict, speculation on the Nord stream pipeline sabotage and on the future of humanity in a multipolar world under the NATO and BRICS power blocs.

Watch the full interview on Odysee

It’s no use going back to yesterday: a news digest from the new normal #3

The third in a regular series courtesy of our New Zealand partner site, The Looking Glass

‘I could tell you my adventures—beginning from this morning,’ said Alice a little timidly: ‘but it’s no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.’  Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll.

Which council candidates value free speech?

The New Zealand Free Speech Union has put together a guide for the upcoming local elections, to help voters identify candidates who value and are willing to stand up for free speech.

New Zealand Government debt surpasses $100 billion

The country has racked up a 70% increase in national debt since covid mania hit in February 2020 to reach $103B, or 32% of GDP. Government debt was at $59.7B prior to covid, representing just 19.5% of GDP. Debt is tipped to reach $190 billion by 2025 – 46.9% of GDP. 

Creepy Canadian vaccine propaganda targeting kids pulled

This advertisement promoting childhood vaccination was published then pulled by the City of Toronto. What were they thinking?

BBC asks, ‘what did we get so wrong?’

A recent ‘documentary’ put out by the BBC to pick apart the minds of the unvaccinated and attempt to convince them they’re wrong, asks: ‘What did we get so wrong about the way that we’ve been talking about this, that millions of people still don’t want to take the vaccine?’

The presenter, Hannah Fry, gets an answer in this (tragi-comic) video. It drives the point home very well. Unfortunately, it includes some fascism from one of my former heroes, Noam Chomsky. How times have changed.

BBC moves to censor vaccine injury groups on Facebook

And the BBC continues its campaign against those who deny the god-like nature of the covid injections. Facebook groups set up for vaccine injured people to share stories and connect are being purged from the social media site with the help of the BBC.

The British broadcaster complained to the Trusted New Initiative that the groups were using carrot emojis to represent vaccines, in order to game (avoid censorship) Meta’s algorithm detection.

Despite being a place to discuss vaccine harm, the groups are being labelled as ‘anti-vax’. The groups, one with hundreds of thousands of members, were removed for “violating our harmful misinformation policies”, Meta says.

Jacinda Ardern tackles ‘disinformation’ and ‘radicalisation’ in New York

Yep, she’s back again to tell us how dangerous ‘misinformation’ is, and how it’s driving people to ‘extremism’. Yawn.

New Zealand will spearhead an international effort to look at how social media algorithms drive people to content the government considers ‘extreme’ and potentially ‘radicalising’.

Ardern appears to have lost the public though. Comments on this Herald tweet show many people are not buying her censorship justifications anymore.

OIA loophole allows ministers to evade accountability

A new Substack post from sociologist Jodie Bruning explores a massive loophole in the OIA Act that means when ministers are reshuffled, they are no longer obliged to answer OIA requests from their previous portfolios.

Bruning has been frustrated by failed attempts to find out how “slippery Hipkins”, Minister for the Covid-19 Health Response before he was transferred to policing, deliberated over the laws he imposed. She was further frustrated by the response from a lame duck Ombudsman who is powerless to investigate.

“This is nothing less than insane. And unjust. And bullshit.

“Hipkins produced legislation that put in place surveillance, compulsory medication, quarantine and lockdown measures at an unprecedented pace. But he could then shift portfolios, jump ship and sail into the distance.”

New Zealand Police expands number plate surveillance network

Police issued new rules about the use of automated number plate recognition (ANPR) last week. They can now tap into private networks, adding thousands of cameras to their surveillance capabilities.

The approach, similar to new proposals in San Francisco, joins the public law enforcement tools with private surveillance and raises extensive privacy concerns. Further, the new law that allows this also shields police from liability for data breaches and makes it harder to get information.

The latest police policy on Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology, allows the police to access number plates recorded by Auror and SaferCities. Both companies operate large CCTV networks in the country and massively extends how long police can keep the number plate footage for.

In 2014, they said strict protocols meant “all information” would be deleted within 48 hours; the new upper limit is 12 months, with others set at 60 days and six months, depending on the type of investigation.

The network was first year during last year’s Northland lockdown, when three women were able to cross into Auckland due to a clerical error. The police are now rolling this partnership out as a permanent surveillance tool. It’s believed by some to be a forerunner to facial recognition technology.

The Government first announced a review of the Search and Surveillance Act in December last year as part of the Government’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on the Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019.

RNZ produced a thorough report, with more to follow.

Brutal Tokelau house arrest for unvaccinated families ends

The family of Mahelino Patelesio in the Tokelau Islands has been released this week from house arrest after more than a year of being unable to leave their home, go to church, go fishing, receive visitors or connect with the community – for being unvaccinated.

A number of families were in this position, and any parent who refused to have their child age five and over injected with mRNA was also placed under house arrest/isolation.

The tunoa was imposed while Ross Ardern, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s father, was the appointed administrator of Tokelau. He is no longer in the position.

A legal team supported by FreeNZ told island leaders that papers would be filed unless the family was released. The tunoa was lifted within an hour of the deadline. Read FreeNZs timeline of events and watch multiple interviews with Patelesio here.

An appalling RNZ report on the lifting of the tunoa, casts Patelesio as someone who broke cultural customs by taking to social media to bring attention to his family’s plight, and completely omits to highlight the discrimination and human rights abuses these families have endured for choosing to remain unvaccinated, which de facto implies RNZ views the house arrests as justified, at least on cultural grounds.

Can this ever be an acceptable way to treat human beings who have done nothing wrong?

Sign up to receive The Looking Glass newsletter

Canadian woman dies seven minutes after booster shot, coroner rules ‘natural causes’

A Canadian woman on 14 September died suddenly in a pharmacy within minutes of receiving the new bivalent covid booster shot (tested on just eight mice), according to her daughter. Carol Pearce texted her daughter, Stephanie Foster, at 12:31 p.m. to say she received her booster shot and was waiting the recommended 15 minutes at the pharmacy. At 12:38 p.m, Pearce was unconscious.

A spokesperson from Saskatchewan Health said Pearce died from natural causes. “The Saskatchewan coroner’s service has investigated this instance and determined that the person died from natural causes.” The woman’s daughter disputes the ruling, and believes it was caused by the jab.

Rory Nairn’s death caused by covid injection, coroner rules

Coroner Sue Johnson has ruled that Dunedin man Rory Nairn’s death from myocarditis was caused by the covid jab. Nairn, 26, died on November 17, 12 days after receiving his first dose of the Pfizer injection. This was the second death from the injection in New Zealand. according to coronial inquiry.

The pharmacist who gave the jab was not aware myocarditis could be fatal and didn’t warn Nairn. Informed consent was therefore not provided.

Speaking to the NZ Herald, Nairn’s parents said Rory was failed by health authorities, and his symptoms should have been treated with greater urgency – instead they were more concerned with not encouraging so called ‘vaccine hesitancy’.

News reports continue to obfuscate the rates of post-jab myocarditis, claiming it is rare and usually mild.

As at 31 August there were 944 recorded cases of myocarditis with CARM, New Zealand’s adverse event monitoring system, which is acknowledged to capture only about 5% of all adverse reactions.

VAERS adverse events reports show there have been more than 52,000 reported cases of myo-and-pericariditis following the jab in the US. VAERS data from the US is considered to account for less than 10% of all actual adverse events.

Could Pfizer deaths get buried with proposed changes to the Coroners Act?

The Justice Committee has tabled an amendment Bill for the Coroners Act that allow coroners to record a cause of death as “unascertained natural causes”, if it was considered that a death was from natural causes – no further investigations would be required. No inquest, or even post-mortem would be required, even if they died suddenly and in an unusual or unnatural manner that could be connected to vaccination.

This means that coroners’ role to diligently pursue the cause of death can be diluted somewhat.

Reliable mortality research requires that cause of death be recorded as accurately as possible. Enabling coroners to record “unascertained natural causes” as a cause of death diminishes the availability of information vital for basic research on public health and vaccine safety.

The timing of the amendment certainly stinks – the country is experiencing high excess mortality, particularly related to the booster shots. Reports of vaccine harm are through the roof, and a coronial inquest has just announced the second official death from the covid jab – Rory Nairn. A total of 177 deaths have been reported to CARM after the administration of the jab, but only eight remain under investigation.

An unofficial database of deaths following vaccination is recorded by New Zealand Doctors Speaking out with Science, which has tabled more than 500 deaths (total figures unavailable at this time) following vaccination that are considered to be worthy of further investigation (so far completely ignored by authorities).

The NZDSOS website says the database is the result of alarming lack of official response to the clear pattern of significant harm from the Pfizer injection program. “Children and adults of all ages continue to die and be injured in appalling numbers around the world and here at home.”

‘Died Suddenly’ reports from all over the world have spiked.

Changes to the Act look like another way to bury good pharmacovigilance, the due diligence we should expect from our government and regulators at all times when introducing new drugs, but particularly now when an inadequately tested novel gene therapy has been rolled out to the whole population.

Make a submission here.

Financial de-platforming: the new battlefront in the war on free speech

PayPal this week de-platformed the British Free Speech Union, along with the personal account of Toby Young and the Daily Sceptic online news site. Young is in charge of both organisations.

The attacks on free and open discussion are becoming more and more widespread. Young is considered to be a ‘right wing’ or conservative commentator. But PayPal also de-platformed alternative news sites on the left earlier this year – Consortium News and Mintpress. It de-platformed UsForThem, a British parents activist group that speaks up again the negative impacts of lockdowns on children.

The common theme appears to be dissenting viewpoints.

When financial services like PayPal act in this way, the public ought to be concerned. It needs to be seen as a serious threat to public debate and the free and open exchange of differing views. Cancel culture means we can be fired for having the wrong opinion and now financial de-platforming, or de-banking, means another way of earning money can be removed.

Recall that around ten years ago, Mastercard did the same to publisher Wikileaks foreshadowing the current trend. Julian Assange is now locked up with terrorists and violent murderers in high security Belmarsh Prison for exposing state crimes.

And earlier this year Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suspended the bank accounts of people supporting the trucker protests against vaccine mandates. An officer of the Ottawa Police Service is now facing discreditable conduct charges because she donated to the Freedom Convoy protest in February. If found guilty, Constable Kristina Neilson could be demoted or fired.

For people who haven’t yet engaged with the dangers of going fully cashless and the imminent advent of programmable Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), this would be a good time to get to grips with it.

If the global public is pushed onto these CBDCs, this kind of financial de-platforming is likely to become the norm, and is probably just the beginning of  how it could be used to control both the behaviours and movements of people. We only have to look at the way the Chinese population is controlled using apparatus such as CBDCs and covid tracer apps, to see which way the wind is blowing.

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand is working on a CBDC now, as are most central banks. To give it credit, in its summary report from a consultation ran late last year, it noted the strong public concern about the privacy and governance implications of such a technology.

Stay curious …

Sign up to receive The Looking Glass newsletter