The head of Facebook-owned WhatsApp, Will Cathcart, issued a statement along with the heads of popular services Wire, Viber, Threema, Element, and Signal to warn that the forthcoming “Online Safety Bill” presents a grave threat to privacy in the U.K., providing a template for censorship and surveillance worldwide.
“In short, the Bill poses an unprecedented threat to the privacy, safety and security of every U.K. citizen and the people with whom they communicate around the world, while emboldening hostile governments who may seek to draft copy-cat laws,” the statement reads.
Whilst no action has yet been taken, it is widely believed that these companies are serious about their intentions to halt operations in the U.K., should they be legally compelled to remove their end-to-end encryption of user messages. As the letter says:
The UK government is currently considering new legislation that opens the door to trying to force technology companies to break end-to-end encryption on private messaging services. The law could give an unelected official the power to weaken the privacy of billions of people around the world.
What is the “Online Safety Bill”?
The Online Safety Bill was reported by The Financial Times on February 15 as a means to compel internet companies to detect and remove both illegal and “legal but harmful” content from their platforms.
Naturally, such a broad definition of “harm” is contentious, especially in a nation which criminalizes “dislike” and “disagreement” as hate speech. In this battle, however, an unusual ally has emerged.
The U.N. has joined the debate with a strongly worded warning against the proposed surveillance measures of the U.K. government: “The United Nations has warned that the U.K. Government’s efforts to impose backdoor requirements constitute a paradigm shift that raises a host of serious problems with potentially dire consequences.”
Protecting the Children
The Online Safety Bill receives strong support from a leading U.K. children’s charity. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) claims the bill could prevent the grooming and sexual exploitation of children.
It is curious that this bill makes no mention of the number one threat to children and young people online — the social contagion of the evil transgender cult.
Why would the leading children’s charity be silent on the foremost threat to children on the internet? In 2019, the NSPCC was embroiled in scandal itself, with its celebrity and talent officer filming himself masturbating in fetish gear at work.
James Makings was not dismissed until four months later, with the homosexualist Pink News decrying the “homophobia” of his accurate description as a “perverted narcissist.”
Makings, when not creating sick pornography at the offices of a children’s charity, was responsible for recruiting the professional pervert Munroe Bergdorf as an NSPCC “ambassador.”
Bergdorf is a man called “Ian” from East London who pretends to be a woman. He has appeared in pornographic magazines and has a history of encouraging vulnerable children to directly contact him online. The NSPCC was reminded of these facts and dismissed Bergdorf on safeguarding grounds, then issuing a groveling apology for doing so.
The media did not report the reasons for his dismissal, merely that this was an instance of “transphobia” committed by “anti-trans fanatics.”
The leading U.K. children’s charity has a history of employing sexual deviants both as staff and “ambassadors,” and makes no mention of protecting any children from their attentions online.
A Noble Cause Abused
The Online Safety Bill is championed by Culture Secretary Nicky Morgan as a means to combat “violence against women and girls.”
In a Sky News report from April 19, Morgan did not explain her belief that algorithms “work to disadvantage women and girls,” concentrating instead on her commitment to online censorship through the invocation of a superficially just cause.
She argued the bill does not go far enough, saying she would like to see the reinstatement of a scrapped amendment that would include “a requirement for tech platforms to remove content that is ‘legal but harmful,’ such as misogynistic views.”
As she made these statements, a demonstration outside Parliament showed precisely what is meant by “misogynistic views.”
Two former stars of television sex show “Love Island” appeared in the report to press for greater legal sanctions to protect women who profit from public sexual displays.
Both Sharon Gaffka and Georgia Harrison have received unsolicited messages, they say, of a sexual nature which they find disturbing. It is presumably “misogynist” to suggest that starring in televised pornography is likely to result in such attention.
A lesson is to be learned here, and if these women genuinely cared for the safety of girls and other women, they could perhaps warn them not to do as they have done, which is to monetize their bodies on national television.
These are the people calling for more stringent measures to protect themselves — from the consequences of their own wantonly immoral behavior. This is one reason, we are told, that digital privacy must be abolished.
Protecting Girls and Women
The Online Safety Bill neglects the pinnacle of self-harm in its aim to protect women and children online.
Whilst it seeks to make tech companies liable to remove child pornography, violent extremism, and images of self-harm such as anorexia, it is blind to the fact that each of these categories apply accurately to the online transmission of the transgender mind virus.
The transgender phenomenon can be correctly understood as a technologically-enabled viral madness that represents the pinnacle of self-harm.
It is admitted by transgender activists themselves that the internet is the chief means of transgender contagion. In this presentation titled “We Are the Virus: Reproduction by Social Contagion,” the female impersonator Dr. “Ruth” Pearce laughs whilst explaining that infection by the internet is the means by which transgenderism is intentionally spread.
Silence over Serious Harm
Graphic images of self-mutilation and sexualized costumes are defended by activists on platforms such as Tumblr, with their removal or placement behind parental controls decried as “transphobia.. This awful site, used heavily by young people in the U.S. and U.K., was the first to glamorize mental illnesses such as depression, self-harm, and anorexia.
It has been celebrated as “A Trans Technology” by activists themselves, as it was the place in which the culture of transgenderism refined and spread its ideology and practices amongst the young.
Trans activists routinely call for violence against women — “TERFs” — whom they describe as “trans-exclusionary radical feminists.” It is an extremist culture which embraces violence.
A culture of fear and intimidation prevents any honest academic inquiry into transgender culture. Dr. Laura Favaro, a British sociologist and mother of two, has had her career ended and two years of research seized for the crime of investigating why no academic studies are done which do not simply applaud transgenderism.
Following the publication of an essay on her work in the Times Higher Education supplement in September 2022, in which she was told in that in academia “there is conflict, and bullying, but no debate happening” about transgender culture, her work at City University ended abruptly, with her research confiscated. Transgender activists have the power to silence any mention of the cause or transmission of this technologically-enabled disorder.
The Danger of Free Speech
As one of the only reports to exist which is critical of this tiny zelotic faction’s capture of culture, the 2020 Civitas report shows the “corrosive impact of transgender ideology.”
The report notes that as trans rights expand, the rights and safety of others are diminished. Transgender ideology “erodes sex-based rights and undermines child protection.”
Transgender culture is the acme of self-harm. It promotes self-mutilation, sterilization, and severe mental illness as a form of liberation — and is aggressively promoted to children and young people online.
It is the number one threat to the safety of women, of girls, and all children. It is spread virally through social contagion — chiefly via the internet. Yet it is completely absent from the Online Safety Bill.
No “Online Safety Bill” can be taken as a sincere attempt to defend our children whilst it silently conspires with the most serious threat to girls, boys, and women to ever emerge.
In this light, the U.K. government bill must be understood as an attempt to abolish digital freedom with no legitimate claim to protection. Its presentation as such is the repetition of the same old argument — that safety requires the limitation of liberty in the hands of an all-seeing state.
The U.K. government seeks to protect itself from a population which will otherwise be able to communicate in relative privacy. It has no interest in protecting children or women from the most obvious and proliferating online harm. It is no surprise that such a regime sees freedom of speech as dangerous.