Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

Julian Assange laments growing censorship, suppression of truth in the West upon release

Published

11 months ago

7 minute read

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, attends the European council on October 1, 2024, in Strasbourg, France

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Speaking after 12 years of confinement, Julian Assange warned of the erosion of free speech in the West, linking his own prosecution to global censorship, political corruption, and attacks on honest journalism.

On October 1, Julian Assange made his first major speech since his release. In it, he delivered a verdict on how we are governed which is as damning as it is revealing.

“I am not free today because the system worked,” Assange said, “I am free today because after years of incarceration I pled guilty to journalism.”

Julian Assange was convicted under the U.S. Espionage Act and spent 12 years in confinement, first taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012, followed by five years in Britain’s maximum-security prison in Belmarsh.

Had his plea not been accepted he faced a sentence of 175 years in prison. He was speaking in Strasbourg, France, at a hearing convened by the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council – which recognized Assange as a “political prisoner.”

Saying how “incarceration has taken its toll,” Assange noted how the world he had rejoined had changed – for the worse:

I regret how much ground has been lost during that time period. How expressing the truth has been undermined, attacked, weakened, and diminished.

Assange gave a chilling account of the state of the Western world today, saying he now sees “more impunity, more secrecy, more retaliation for telling the truth, and more self-censorship.”

He believes that his own treatment was a turning point for the suppression of freedom of speech in the West:

It is hard not to draw a line from the U.S. government’s prosecution of me – its crossing the Rubicon by internationally criminalizing journalism – to the chill climate for freedom of expression that exists now.

During his speech, Assange alleged that former CIA director Mike Pompeo devised a plan to kill him, following Wikileaks’ revelation in 2017 of CIA operations in Europe.

Citing the testimony of “more than 30 former and current U.S. intelligence officials,” Assange said that “it is a matter of public record that under Pompeo’s explicit direction the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and to assassinate me” while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Assange was originally pursued for having publicized U.S. actions in Guantanamo Bay, and alleged war crimes in Iraq, which he explains intensified following Wikileaks’ CIA revelations.

Cracks in our system

Assange’s case and his extraordinary testimony reveals one of many fault lines in the Western world.

“Today, the free world is no longer free.” said Salvadorean President Nayib Bukele, describing also how the West is becoming “more pessimistic,” adding that, “[t]ragically, we can see more evidence of this decline every day.” Speaking at the United Nations on September 30, he said:

When the Free World became free it was due to freedom of expression, freedom before the law. But once a nation abandons the principles that make it free it’s only a question of time before it completely loses its freedom.

His observations are echoed by statements from across the political divide in the U.S.

The former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard warned on October 5 that the party she left now seeks to undermine the First Amendment. She said on X, “People like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris do not believe in the First Amendment because they see it as an obstacle to achieving their real goal: ‘total control.’”

Her remarks followed those made by Hillary Clinton in a recent video interview, in which Clinton said “whether it’s Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok … if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.”

Clinton’s remarks about losing “total control” come after Sen. John Kerry spoke at the World Economic Forum on September 25, saying “our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just hammer [disinformation] out of existence.”

Kerry argued that opposition to the polices of the WEF was fueled by “disinformation” when critics in fact simply dislike its policies. Populism generally is described as a threat to democracy in the West, when it is also simply the preference for popular policies, against the unpopular ones of the current ruling elite.

“Disinformation,” and “misinformation” are terms invented and used by the language and ideological police to hide their malicious intent.

It appears that unpopular policies such as those of permanent war, Net Zero, deindustrialization, and denationalization can only be pursued with “total control” of the information seen by the public.

The meaningful political debate is not about left and right. It is about the meaning of what is right, and the outrage at what is obviously wrong. Assange says “it is uncertain what we can do” about the “impunity” of our leadership, which as yet has faced no meaningful consequences for its pursuit of deeply unpopular policies at the expense of widespread corruption and defended by censorship.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
COVID-19 / 53 mins ago

The Persecution of Canada’s “Other” Freedom Convoy Truckers

Crime / 1 hour ago

Former NYPD Inspector Breaks Down How Charlie Kirk’s Shooter Will Be Caught

Crime / 2 hours ago

Surveillance video shows Charlie Kirk’s killer slipping away moments after shooting

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK’s top cop wants to ‘stop policing tweets’: report

Published on September 11, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

‘I don’t believe we should be policing toxic culture wars debates,’ said Sir Mark Rowley, chief of the London Metropolitan Police.

In a remarkable shift, Britain’s most senior police officer is to recommend changes to the law which could allow police to “stop policing tweets” within weeks.

Sir Mark Rowley, chief of London’s Metropolitan Police, said he will approach the Home Secretary with proposals which could see police return to policing real-life crime.

Sources close to Rowley told the UK’s Daily Telegraph:

He wants Shabana Mahmood, the new Home Secretary, to change the rules so police officers are not required to record or investigate complaints when there is no evidence the suspect intended real-world harm.

The change would be a remarkable departure from the crackdown on “non-crime hate incidents,” which have seen British people given sentences of several years for remarks made online.

Rowley’s move to change the law comes alongside the UK Labour government’s proposal to introduce digital ID – which could tie access to bank accounts and work to online speech.

Return to common sense policing?

The Telegraph’s source said Rowley “is proposing a shake-up of legislation that would give officers greater discretion to use ‘common sense’ when deciding whether to record and investigate complaints about comments on social media.”

The proposed change follows the arrest of comedy writer Graham Linehan, prompting the Metropolitan Police Chief to respond.

Responding to Linehan’s arrest, Rowley said on September 3 that a return to common sense was needed as a series of high-profile arrests over “non-crime hate incidents” was undermining public trust in the police.

He said the policies of successive governments had left the police in an “impossible position” over hate speech laws.

“[O]fficers are currently in an impossible position. I have offered to provide suggestions to the Home Office on where the law and policy should be clarified.”

Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson, who was doorstepped by police last November for a tweet described as a “non-crime hate incident,” responded on September 9 by saying Rowley’s step towards defending free speech was “disingenuous” at best.

“At the risk of being arrested,” Pearson said, “I suggest Met chief Mark Rowley is a total muppet.”

Commenting on the recent arrest of comedian Graham Linehan for online speech, she added, “It is disingenuous in the extreme for the commissioner to say officers’ hands are tied in cases like that of Graham Linehan.”

Pearson explains that Linehan, famous for writing sitcoms, was arrested by five armed police after a “notorious trans activist” reported his tweets to police.

Rowley’s claim is that guidelines to police compel them to treat such appeals as crime reports, leaving no room for discretion.

Pearson then refers to the many real-life crimes to which British police do not routinely respond – even over decades:

It’s perfectly clear that the police have discretion to ignore complaints, even crimes, if they want to. Let’s see now:

Phone theft – ignored.

Shoplifting – essentially legal.

Carjacking – we’ll send you a crime number.

Burglaries – help yourself, lads!

Sexual harassment, child gang rape – er, sorry, cultural sensitivities.

Pearson concludes that the police chief is himself being dishonest – at best – in saying that speech crime laws tie the hands of officers.

For Sir Mark to claim that his officers were unable to use their common sense and ignore a complaint from a notorious trans activist about [Linehan] is to insult the public’s intelligence.

Baronness Winterbourne of the House of Lords responded, recommending that “[i]nstead of blaming Parliament for your officers’ inability to think for themselves intelligently, perhaps you might firmly tell them, please, to stop being stupid.”

As the latest Telegraph report shows, government advice to police already exists – which has not prevented the policing of so-called “non-crime hate incidents.”

More than 13,200 non-crime hate incidents were recorded by police in the 12 months to June 2024, a similar number to the previous year, despite new guidelines requiring police to investigate only ‘when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate and not simply because someone is offended.’

Rowley was also recorded on a UK radio show defending the officers who carried out Linehan’s arrest.

Graham Linehan’s case is but one of many in which British people have been prosecuted for online speech. As the Free Speech Union reported in April 2025, new data showed that over 12,000 people in Britain are arrested for speech crimes every year.

Hitchens: Disband the police?

Peter Hitchens, a veteran conservative commentator and staunch Christian, spoke out on GB News – calling for the British police to be completely abolished and replaced.

Hitchens, a devout Christian, said the British police should be “disbanded” as they have become a “sinister menace to the freedom of speech.”

“They’re not responsible for crime anymore,” Hitchens explained. “They’re a politically correct body who think they’re policing thought.”

He told GB News’ Michelle Dewberry that “the police don’t believe they should be doing what we think they should be doing. They do believe they should be arresting people for incorrect tweets. The only solution is to disband them and start again.”

Elsewhere Hitchens argued this was no novel development, saying this “new style of policing” went back 20 years.

Two-tier Keir Starmer

The embattled Prime Minister Keir Starmer has long been accused of “two-tier” policing in cracking down on “far-right thugs” who commit online speech crimes.

As the murder of Charlie Kirk focuses attention on the toxic speech of the left, Britain’s justice system sees no evil when left-wingers call for the collective murder of people on the right.

Whilst former Conservative councilor Lucy Connolly received a 31-month sentence for an angry tweet about illegal migrants, a councilor for Starmer’s own Labour Party was found not guilty of incitement to violence after demanding that everyone he saw as “far right” be murdered.

Ricky Jones was declared innocent after publicly calling for his comrades to “cut the throats” of the so-called “disgusting Nazi fascists” who were protesting over the murder of children by a man of migrant heritage. Three girls were killed in Southport by a Rwandan youth last July. After stabbing the nine children in a frenzied assault, Axel Rudakubana told police, “It’s a good thing those children are dead.”

When angry protests broke out at the murders, Jones responded on video, saying of the so-called “far-right” protesters: “We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.”

Jones was freed, Connolly was jailed.

Despite the obvious dangers in preferring the policing of speech to genuine threats and crimes, there seems to be no cause for concern from the point of view of Britain’s prime minister.

During Wednesday afternoon’s questions, Sir Keir Starmer was asked whether he would commit to revising speech laws to “ensure legitimate free expression is protected.”

Starmer replied with a stock response: “I’ve been clear throughout, we must ensure the police focus on the most serious issues and the issues that matter most to our constituencies and all communities.”

He ended by saying he was proud of Britain’s long history of free speech, which he said he would always protect.

“And that includes tackling issues like antisocial behavior, knife crime and violence. And we have a long history of free speech in this country. I’m very proud of that, and I will always defend it.”

Continue Reading

Banks

Debanking Is Real, And It’s Coming For You

Published on September 9, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

Marco Navarro-Genie warns that debanking is turning into Ottawa’s weapon of choice to silence dissent, and only the provinces can step in to protect Canadians.

Disagree with the establishment and you risk losing your bank account

What looked like a narrow, post-convoy overreach has morphed into something much broader—and far more disturbing. Debanking isn’t a policy misfire. It’s turning into a systemic method of silencing dissent—not just in Canada, but across the Western world.

Across Canada, the U.S. and the U.K., people are being cut off from basic financial services not because they’ve broken any laws, but because they hold views or support causes the establishment disfavors. When I contacted Eva Chipiuk after RBC quietly shut down her account, she confirmed what others had only whispered: this is happening to a lot of people.

This abusive form of financial blacklisting is deep, deliberate and dangerous. In the U.K., Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK and no stranger to controversy, was debanked under the fig leaf of financial justification. Internal memos later revealed the real reason: he was deemed a reputational risk. Cue the backlash, and by 2025, the bank was forced into a settlement complete with an apology and compensation. But the message had already been sent.

That message didn’t stay confined to Britain. And let’s not pretend it’s just private institutions playing favourites. Even in Alberta—where one might hope for a little more institutional backbone—Tamara Lich was denied an appointment to open an account at ATB Financial. That’s Alberta’s own Crown bank. If you think provincial ownership protects citizens from political interference, think again.

Fortunately, not every institution has lost its nerve. Bow Valley Credit Union, a smaller but principled operation, has taken a clear stance: it won’t debank Albertans over their political views or affiliations. In an era of bureaucratic cowardice, Bow Valley is acting like a credit union should: protective of its members and refreshingly unapologetic about it.

South of the border, things are shifting. On Aug. 7, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans.” The order prohibits financial institutions from denying service based on political affiliation, religion or other lawful activity. It also instructs U.S. regulators to scrap the squishy concept of “reputational risk”—the bureaucratic smoke screen used to justify debanking—and mandates a review of past decisions. Cases involving ideological bias must now be referred to the Department of Justice.

This isn’t just paperwork. It’s a blunt declaration: access to banking is a civil right. From now on, in the U.S., politically motivated debanking comes with consequences.

Of course, it’s not perfect. Critics were quick to notice that the order conveniently omits platforms like PayPal and other payment processors—companies that have been quietly normalizing debanking for over a decade. These are the folks who love vague “acceptable use” policies and ideological red lines that shift with the political winds. Their absence from the order raises more than a few eyebrows.

And the same goes for another set of financial gatekeepers hiding in plain sight. Credit card networks like Visa, American Express and Mastercard have become powerful, unaccountable referees, denying service to individuals and organizations labelled “controversial” for reasons that often boil down to politics.

If these players aren’t explicitly reined in, banks might play by the new rules while the rest of the financial ecosystem keeps enforcing ideological conformity by other means.

If access to money is a civil right, then that right must be protected across the entire payments system—not just at your local branch.

While the U.S. is attempting to shield its citizens from ideological discrimination, there is a noticeable silence in Canada. Not a word of concern from the government benches—or the opposition. The political class is united, apparently, in its indifference.

If Ottawa won’t act, provinces must. That makes things especially urgent for Alberta and Saskatchewan. These are the provinces where dissent from Ottawa’s policies is most common—and where citizens are most likely to face politically motivated financial retaliation.

But they’re not powerless. Both provinces boast robust credit union systems. Alberta even owns ATB Financial, a Crown bank originally created to protect Albertans from central Canadian interference. But ownership without political will is just branding.

If Alberta and Saskatchewan are serious about defending civil liberties, they should act now. They can legislate protections that prohibit financial blacklisting based on political affiliation or lawful advocacy. They can require due process before any account is frozen. They can strip “reputational risk” from the rulebooks and make it clear to Ottawa: using banks to punish dissenters won’t fly here.

Because once governments—or corporations doing their bidding—can cut off your access to money for holding the wrong opinion, democracy isn’t just threatened.

It’s already broken.

Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Continue Reading

Trending

X