HOW can a government that locked us down, collapsed our businesses, imposed a useless mask compliance regime, misled us about the severity of Covid while stifling information about safe, effective treatments in order to force through emergency use approval for ‘vaccines’ and nudge us towards experimental treatments that not only failed to prevent transmission, but caused irreversible damage and death, be in any position to decide what constitutes ‘harm’?
Yet here comes the Online Safety Bill, threatening not only hefty fines from free-press-suppressing Ofcom, but also prison time for anybody judged to have caused psychological harm leading to ‘serious distress’. Harmful content could include online bullying and abuse, advocacy of self-harm and the spreading of misinformation (defined as information that is false, but not created with the intention of causing harm) disinformation (information that is false and created to harm a person, social group, organisation or country) and malinformation (information that is based on reality, used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country).
Section 53 (c) of the Online Safety Bill determines offending content to be anything that ‘presents a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the United Kingdom’.
Like a vaccine then, or masks, or not seeing your friends, or not being able to go out, or attend school and with the added fear that by being ‘selfish’ and not taking a vaccine you didn’t need, you could kill your granny, mum, dad and teacher. Little wonder 374,646 children and young people contacted mental health services last month. The number of adults contacting mental health services in the same period was 1,054,003.
Harms with a less clear legal definition include ‘Coercive Behaviour’ (a government speciality), ‘Disinformation’ (Gates-funded MSM, WHO and all those ‘fact-checkers’ sponsored by the usual suspects), ‘Intimidation’ (jabs for jobs) and ‘Advocacy of Self-Harm’ (‘vaccines’).
The Bill, which also ‘protects’ adults – in case, God forbid, we might have the temerity to think for ourselves – empowers Ofcom to block users, control, moderate and take down content. Criminal sanctions currently in ‘reserve’ could be imposed on tech giants if they fail to clean up their acts or do not ‘allow Ofcom access to their algorithms’ – algorithms that show ‘how easily, quickly and widely content may be disseminated by means of the service’. In other words, Ofcom has been given free rein to make any significant change to a risk profile and make their own assessment as to the level of risk of harm to adults and how quickly such perceived-to-be-harmful content can be spread. So if Ofcom decides – as with YouTube’s Covid-19 Misinformation Policy (slight conflict of interests since Google Ventures invested in the AZ ‘vaccine’) which defines medical misinformation as any content that ‘contradicts guidance from the WHO or local health authorities’ – that ivermectin can cause harm, they can take down any mention of ivermectin (even if the only damage caused by ivermectin is to the profits of the pharma criminals) regardless of the fact Ofcom does not employ immunologists, epidemiologists or virologists.
As for ‘hate speech’, defined as ‘all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of . . . belief . . . or opinion’, would Piers Morgan’s ‘Anti-vaxxers really are a bunch of spineless pussies’ tweet, or Noam Chomsky’s insistence that the unvaccinated be segregated and that getting food was ‘their problem’, qualify as hate speech? Of course not. Their views are in line with The Agenda.
Adults don’t need Ofcom chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes deciding for them what they can or can’t watch (I use a VPN for Russia Today, Melanie) any more than they need Bill Gates telling them what they can eat (synthetic burgers) or Nadine Dorries pushing through the government’s idea of what constitutes harm or safety. Offence is taken, not given. If I wish to be offended, that’s my choice.
If the government genuinely cared about harm, they’d have carried out risk assessments to weigh up the pros (none) and cons (it was) of locking down the country. They wouldn’t have wilfully terrified the public when they knew full well Covid wasn’t a risk, as they themselves were partying like it was 1984.
Had Nadine ‘I’m A Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here’ Dorries cared about ‘harm’ she’d have voluntarily answered one of the 50 letters and emails sent to her by one of her own vaccine-injured constituents instead of having to be pressured into a response by a lobbying group taking up the cause of the vaccine-injured.
If the government cared one iota for the electorate, the vaccine rollout would surely have been halted following a September 2021 meeting in which Tess Lawrie, Dolores Cahill, Mike Yeadon and other doctors and scientists presented damning evidence to Sir Graham Brady of the 1922 Committee which illustrated how a mass rollout of the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ for children would lead to children being maimed, killed and sterilised.
Such disregard for the electorate runs throughout government. There was a full house for Zelensky’s Churchill-plagiarising extravaganza compared with a paltry five MPs for the reading of Sir Christopher Chope’s Private Member’s Bill aimed at reforming the government’s Vaccine Damages Payment Scheme (VDPS).
Despite more than 2,000 deaths and approaching a million and half injuries (including blindness, strokes and paralysis) reported to MHRA’s Yellow Card scheme (set up following the thalidomide scandal) no compensation has yet been paid. As the VDPS doesn’t consider death as a qualifier for the 60 per cent disability requirement needed to pay out the paltry £120,000 to cover a lifetime of injury, clearly they’re already trying to wriggle out of it.
Before the Online Harms Bill goes any further, it might be a good idea to decide who is the best legal arbiter to rule on what unequivocally constitutes mis-, dis- or mal-information and who in the government (if anyone) has the moral authority or psychological capacity to judge what represents psychological ‘harm’ either to a child or an adult.
If the Online Safety Bill does pass, first in the dock should be the government.
