At the centre of democracy is free speech. But everywhere you look it is under attack. There has been a surge in concerns about the creeping censorship that fills the airwaves and the increasing suppression on various media platforms.
Our work has been targeted by those who aim to silence and limit our right to free speech. Therefore, we consider it vital to understand the tactics of censorship to exercise your right to freedom of expression and contribute to the fight for free speech.
The Instant Emotional Outburst
This usually is an abusive attack that uses swear words (‘you stupid asshole‘) or seeks to defame you somehow: you’re a murderer, you have blood on your hands. It typically is an instantaneous reaction that seeks to shut down the debate immediately. Everyone should know you’re such a bad person, and therefore equally, your opinions are …..
We find this strategy impossible to engage with and should be ignored.
The Labelling Technique
This will pigeonhole you as an ‘anti’ something, a ‘phobic’ or an ‘-ist’. It may paint you as a Right-winger or a Left-winger. The aim is to put you in your place: you’re someone with a fixed ideology and, consequently, a terrible person. Therefore, your views aren’t worth engaging with. This is a common tactic as it doesn’t address the message you portray but instead attacks you, the messenger.
It’s a tactic that academics often use: Jeremy Farrar used it in his book. Somehow there are “serious scientists”, and therefore there are those that lack the ability to be serious.
As a strategy, it is impossible to deal with and is a certain ender of debate. However, when this happens, it generally means you are on the right track, so don’t be fazed by these disturbing actions; it shows the attacker has lost his way and cannot formulate a coherent argument; he has run out of options.
The Takedown
Increasingly this is the tactic of social media sites. Driven by certain positions that suit the status quo or the government of the day, you’ll be removed from social media sites such as Twitter or Facebook. Or your message will come with a warning.
Often underpinned by fact-checking sites, this strategy requires action to overcome any ban. We think it is necessary to regulate such sites if they act like news outlets. While the latter have editorial controls, the former should be clear about the process of what it should and shouldn’t allow and how it deals with disputes.
We also learned some politicians favour this tactic. For example, the Lockdown Files based on Leaked WhatsApp messages showed that attacks were partly orchestrated by Matt Hancock, who harnessed the full power of the state to silence ‘dissenters’. As far as Hancock was concerned, anyone who fundamentally disagreed with his approach was mad and dangerous and needed to be shut down.
One of the answers is to create multiple channels for your outlets, and increasingly, we’re finding Substack a valuable outlet for explainers about the problems.
The Undermining Publication.
While the emotional outburst, the labelling and the takedown undermine your credibility, a fourth approach is to produce a website or a publication that seeks to destroy your reputation.
In January 2021, a website called ‘Anti-Virus: The Covid-19 FAQ’ was created by a group unknown to us, including a sitting MP. Its sole purpose was to debunk messages that disagreed with mainstream Government policies — the website list “myths” about Covid and names “sceptics”, including us. If you click on names, you will be introduced to a series of capital charges against us. We were no longer evidence-based if we questioned the evidence for policies such as the Rule of Six.
The website was “dedicated to debunking common Covid Sceptic arguments and highlighting the track record of some of the most influential and consistently-wrong Covid Sceptics”.
However, the truth will emerge over the long term, and the proponents of such sites will end up wishing they had never embarked on such a foolhardy strategy.
But beware of being called out for making an error. Undertaking research is fraught with dangers; mistakes are common and can occur at all stages, even at the point of publication. An overzealous editor can change one word, and the whole meaning of your text can go out the window. Of course, mistakes made should be acknowledged and corrected. But beware of the censorship zealots who will seek to taint all your work going forward as error-strewn.
The complaints
An insidious approach that seeks to get your boss and your organisation to shut you up. The complainant hasn’t got the means or the argument to take you on directly. Instead, he or she goes behind your back, puts you and your family under pressure, and, in some circumstances, threatens your livelihood. In doing so, he accepts his inability to debate and discuss the issues directly.
However, sometimes they will also make a big deal over the investigation. Your work is tainted because the organisation deems you worthy of an investigation. The vast majority of complaints are disagreements, but organisations seem ill-equipped to tell the difference between a valid complaint and someone employing the tactics of censorship and suppression.
Editorial Bias
We have increasingly seen several journals and news outlets take a particular stance and only report or accept articles based on their ideological views. Unfortunately, nothing can be done to counter this problem; however, it is worth understanding those outlets that take such fixed views. Beware of those that seek to slander you editorially.
We’ve been surprised by some of the medical journals’ one-sided approaches – including the commissioning of biased and Teflon editorials and the deviation from usual editorial processes that seek to undermine the research output. Teflon is when the uncomfortable message cannot stick to you, the editor, because you are hiding behind an editorial undermining the research you do not like. In fact, with Teflon, nothing sticks.
Some editors cannot withstand the pressure of the social media posse, who circle their prey like vultures. The worst thing an editor can do is give in to these bullies: unelected, relentless and often overnight experts. Give in once to the posse, and you may perish, or even worse, you might find your work retracted. Be ready for the onslaught and prepare well. In your fightback, take the emotion out of your responses and turn to the evidence.
But beware of those editors who choose peer reviewers to support their one-sided views using anonymous attacks to suppress research outputs that don’t meet their predetermined opinions. Ultimately though, it will be to their discredit as they should be built on impartiality and fairness: it’s fair to say that journals have had a lousy pandemic. However, there’s little to do here but move on to the next journal; there’s plenty of them.
Comments Cartel
This is a brilliant tactic. It consists of an organised onslaught on a piece of published research work. You can see this in the comments to A122. The underlying message is that the research is unsound because so many people post negative comments; hence, science is democratic, and the Noes have it, which is nonsense. We recommend databasing the addresses of the senders if they exist and checking the text for style patterns, as most of the comments are repetitions passed along from one member of the cartel to the next.
It’s worth reminding yourself of some laws that protect you if you decide to speak out.
The 1986 Education Act (No.2) states: “Persons concerned in the Government of any establishment… shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.” The 1988 Education Reform Act references the right of U.K. academics “to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have at their institution”. The European Convention on Human Rights Article 10 states that “protection extends to the expression of views that may shock, disturb or offend the deeply held beliefs of others”. UNESCO’s 1997 Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel states that institutions should be accountable for effectively supporting academic freedom and fundamental human rights.
It comes down to this: no single idea or belief should be privileged. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. If we elicit an emotional response or find that folk disagree or are disappointed by our answers, we have done our job. However, emotions that lead to the tactics of suppression and censorship fail to engage critically with the issues of the day.
Reflecting uncertainty is a central tenet of free speech. However, the current pursuit of truth is a path filled with hazards. Learning to approach matters of debate critically and with confidence will ensure our democratic values remain intact.
Dr. Carl Heneghan is the Oxford Professor of Evidence Based Medicine and Dr. Tom Jefferson is an epidemiologist based in Rome who works with Professor Heneghan on the Cochrane Collaboration. This article was first published on their Substack blog, Trust The Evidence, which you can subscribe to here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
That asteroid can’t come soon enough, can it?
A science fiction story I remember from the past starts with aliens landing on earth who then immediately proceed to butcher and process humans for some mysterious purpose in vast numbers. All attempts to stop or otherwise fight them fail because of their superior technology and the doom of mankind seems a certainty until someone finally manages to communicate with them. At this point, they immediately stop these activities and sincerely apologize for the unintendend massacre. The problem was that they had entirely failed to realize that humans were something other than contaminated water.
Some certainly aren’t.
Me next for the suicide booth, Bender.
Bloody hell, this is getting dark!
Well, I’ll be certainly be AVOIDing them with my charitable donations from now on.
I accidentally blundered into their donation site, not realising it was an echo-chamber blog, and asked a neutral question exactly what they fund, and whether the White Hats were involved, which led to my being set upon by a gang of virtue-signallers with blue-and-white profile filters. I made my excuses and left.
Can charities (or their employees) be held responsible for misappropriation of funds? If so, this would seem be a splendid opportunity to do that: It’s a safe bet that nobody who ever donated money to Oxfam desired to commission an Oxfalish: English Expertly Undone For The Postcolonial Age report.
It’s pretty clear that big charities have been engaged and proactive in furthering political agendas for decades. How individuals view giving money to charities is up to them but the huge amounts given to them via government regulated lottery monies and directly awarded tax payers money is matter of great concern.
But what should we expect from a fake Tory Party?
What language isn’t “The Language of a Colonising Nation”?
Stand in the Park – Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
What utter planks! At least people like this don’t work for the BBC and civil service. Wait a minute…
“The introduction apologises for being in and about the English language.”— Quite so! In future, please submit your work (woke) in Sanskrit or Coptic.
Or Klingon. More people would understand that, and as it’s the language of a fictitious “colonising nation”, presumably it would be OK for the crackpots at OXFAM.
“In future, please submit your work (woke) in Sanskrit or Coptic…”
because none of the rest of us want to firkin read it.
Perzakerly!
How about Esparanto?
The people at Oxfam must get smacked of their tits on crack, then hold a meeting to discussing the best ways to p off their donors!
I stopped supporting Oxfam years ago when they changed their job description to ‘fighting the anthropogenic 0.001% of a gaseous plant food that keeps everything on this planet alive.’
When they are not using charitable donations to pay for prostitutes they are using them to insult their donors. They pay their CEO a six figure sum to come up with this?
That’s just like the former Silicon Valley Bank: Once a single woketard has managed to get into a position where he can influence employment decisions, he’s going to use that to hire more woketards doing ever more woketarding at the expense of the company until all of the productive staff has been replaced with drones issueing language guides and engaging in performance politics celebrating other woketards for also doing this. This continues until the money has run out. Then, the parasites jump ship and find another host company/ organization.
This is Andrew Bridgen’s speech from this afternoon. You Tube have already taken it down because it’s too much truth for them to handle. Can’t be getting that much contradictory information to the masses now…But if you’re quick you will see at the very start somebody taps the guy with the white hair in front, he goes over to the other side and speaks to somebody and they all get up and leave! So Andrew is left speaking to a near empty room once more. Disgusting! They should be obliged to remain out of basic courtesy! And the guy who replies to Bridgen has nothing in the way of come-back and is a right gonk. See what you think;
https://odysee.com/@AwakenWiki:c/Andrew-Bridgen—Efficacy-of-the-mRNA-covid-19-booster,-17-Mar-2023:e
I don’t have the time to watch this completely ATM (it’s about 27 minutes), but thanks for posting it.
Actually I haven’t watched it all either, just skipped it along. My preference went instead with a dose of The Walking Dead.
Government minister does not answer any of Bridgen’s questions. Same old safe and effective. One day this is going to bite them on the arse.
It’s both disgraceful and insulting in equal measure. I listen to these sock puppets and just think they cannot possibly believe what they’re saying, they’re just toeing the party line.
Extraordinary if true. I have never heard before of a Member of Parliament, speaking in Parliament, being censored. I listened to him speaking on BBC Parliament Channel. What he says is based on ONS data. It at least merits a response from government if they have a different interpretation. Otherwise the impression is that they just don’t want to hear dissent.
Well I’m disgusted because it comes off as being blatantly snubbed by your fellow colleagues. It’s both rude and unprofessional. Also, if this is the sort of treatment Bridgen has now come to expect, does it come as any surprise that these same MPs have also zero interest in listening to the public’s concerns, the vax injured or even contemplating starting an investigation into the safety of the products that they bullied, threatened and coerced people to get, all based on lies and fraud? Their behaviour in Parliament just speaks volumes of their attitude and disinterest towards the British public. I’m not even a UK resident anymore and I feel very, very pissed off watching this.
Thanks
Nations are colonising, by definition.
Oh well, language is difficult and should be banned, to avoid offending people who are a bit dense.
So, as I haven’t colonised anything, I shall now write that in my language, as follows:
Erdle flinsbuk shert’bhi grees klus.
Literally, anything colonised have not I myself.
Hope that hasn’t offended anyone.
Does the guide have lots of euphemisms for sexual offences?
Aren’t Oxfam up to their necks in pedophilia and child abuse in those countries that they claim are victims of colonial power. I’m wondering how they square that particular circle. Perhaps they could take a leaf out if the good book which advises “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?” What is it with these hypocritical parasites that makes them think we should do as they say and not as they do.
Watch this 6min video from Truth Be Told posted 2 hours ago, thanking Andrew Bridgen. Very moving.
https://twitter.com/CoviLeaksCVVAM
Thanks
The Newspeak is getting more Orwellian by the day, it seems.
I stopped donating when the prostitute scandal broke. Also our local Oxfam shop has a very peculiar smell which I don’t like and the ‘holier than thou’ attitude of some of the staff adds to my dislike of it.
This latest stuff is ridiculous. So, it’s nevermore for me and I’ll bet they’ll lose donations.
As per Oxfam’s Annual Report and Accounts 2021/2022, the salary of the current CEO Dr. Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah is reportedly well over ₤120,936 and the company’s turnover is ₤400,000,000. After the CEO, the highest salary is of CFO who is paid around ₤108,703. Isn’t the term ” pounds” a left over from Colonial rule? Just saying
A charity that can afford to spend donated funds on producing such guff, clearly has forgotten what it is for, it appears in common with many organisations it believes it is more important to virtue signal, rather than actually perform the job it is supposed to be doing.
I will no longer donate money, clothes, things to Oxfam, neither will I purchase from its shops, clearly it is spending charitable donations on too many staff, with too little to do whilst the poor and diseased suffer for Oxfams vanity.
So the English language didn’t exist before the English set up colonies? Gosh, the standard of history teaching is really impressive.
I know. And Yorkshire folk spoke something quite different from Viking before those colonisers showed up. B*stards.
And don’t get me started on the French
Not even the french like the french.
English colonies had by-and-large ceased to exist by the 1980s, ie, about 30 years ago. Hence, today’s decolonizers are preaching to an echo chamber filled with themselves about a supposed issue which doesn’t exist anymore. Or actually, exists in the exact opposite of what it used to be: Colonization is nothing but immigration of foreigners with the intent to settle permanently in the area they immigrated into. Usually, they don’t care very much about the natives and just themselves up exactly (or as exactly as possible) as things used to be in the place they came from. Considering this, the England of 2023 is a heavily colonized nation, to a degree where large parts are barely recognizable as English at all. There are even – although this is still officially denied – Sharia courts operating here handing out covert death penalities to people they deem religious transgressors and the police is backing them.
Silly buggers.
NEVER allow this absurd wokery to influence your world view. At all times choose your own words and thoughts, for if you let these insidious central planners choose them for you then your freedom is LOST, and as Joni Mitchell would say “You don’t know what you got till it’s gone”.
Oxfam’s owes its existence to the UK’s colonial heritage as do many other charities. Oxfam is known for its high salaries in the sector but I suspect if you look at its diversity record, most of its leaders will be the children and grandchildren of those very same colonalists from whom they derive their privileged positions and continue to benefit from albeit by trashing their legacy.
I suspect those who wrote the guide know very little about history besides what they have been told.
Human history shows that the Western culture has created the most free, richest, equal and diverse civilization in the history of the world.