a friend in the united states for with you little bit of weight about 80 volts. everybody phases, since only city drop you look at the incentives of each cigarettes, p color revolutions, is one among several means to reach that goal of conquering foreign lands and bringing them onto the help of usaa weston economic interest. people in sadie, hadn't that needed to grow valley? did them okay. lexia learning reaching correctly. so no, we must say loaders, softball m. a cat. the final goal of these thing revolutions is to ensure that there are no independent players in the world anymore.

2 ah, many national security whistleblowers here in the united states have had to defend ourselves against charges arising from the espionage act that punitive 1917 law that was meant to protect the country from german saboteurs in the 1st world war. that's a bad situation. the espionage act carries a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison. most people convicted of espionage get between 10 and 20 years in prison. and in extreme cases, the espionage act carries with it the death penalty. but what does it look like when a country, in this case, the united kingdom tries to pass a law that's even tougher than the espionage act? i'm john kerry aku will find out in this episode of the whistle blowers. ah. 2 2 the united kingdom has long been known for its draconian use of espionage laws,

not just to protect the country secrets, but to prevent the league of any governmental information, even if that information does not impact security. even if it simply embarrasses the government. the u. k. official secrets act was passed into law in 1911. it outlawed making public any information that could in any way. busy quote, aid or assist the enemy on quote, what that meant was opened to broad interpretation. the official secrets act was updated many times over the years. and again, in 1989, not to reform it, but to make it even tougher than 1989 version remove the public interest defense. thus making it impossible for a defendant to stand up in court and explain that what he or she released to the public was done in the public interest, such as reporting a crime that had been classified to keep it secret. in the fall of 2022, the british parliament began consideration of yet another revision of the official

secrets act. a new provision would make it illegal to be an undeclared foreign spy in the united kingdom, even if that undeclared spy was not carrying out any active espionage, was not working on behalf of a foreign state and posed no threat to the national security. in essence, the act would make illegal whatever activity the government wanted. we're going to talk about this in more with our guest mohammed al muzzy mohammed is a u. k based freelance journalist and contributor to numerous outlets including the dissenter, jacobin the canary and electronic intifada. welcome ahmed. good to have you. thanks so much for joining us. thank you for inviting me, mom at let's start with the need or the lack of a need for changes to espionage laws in the united kingdom that are already among the most draconian in the western world. why is there such interest within the british conservative party to strengthen the official secrets act? what's the basis of this, this movement?

so there are multiple acts that been passed over the years that they want to consolidate into a single one. what they're now calling the national security bill. so just to be clear, it's not just the tory party, although the conservative party, although they're the ones who are, who hold the majority of seats and parliament and therefore control the executive branch of government. and i mean there are some people like a socialist, like jeremy corbin, we've come out against the bill, but there is majority support from the labor party. why the by care st armour and farm liberal democrats as well. i mean, we'll see what happens eventually, but yeah, there is cross party support from the majority of those who have commented about it or commented on it and, and concerns about freedom of speech, a whistleblower protections journalism or simply being brushed aside, they're not really being addressed and just to give a bit of history after the leaks from edward snowden, which revealed the anglo american global warrantless mass surveillance program,

which vacuums up private data of hundreds of millions of people. and the revelation of war crimes and other abuses by wikileaks, that the, the u. k. government asked the law commission, which is a sort of independent body to review its official secrets, act laws. and that review went on for a number of years. and there's also much more recently within parliament as they're debating the current national security bill. a bit of hysteria over real or imagined spying, or even simply lobbying by the chinese government. and these are the kinds of things that have been mentioned during the parliamentary debates and government and government releases as justifying what they call the modernization of official secrets laws. and the law commission came back with recommendations that included far more draconian punishments and additional criminal offenses that previously didn't exist. and the government is pushing through a bill that contains most of the of the, the most severe recommendations. but none of the actual safeguards are recommended

by the all commission. some of the few good things to come from. the law commission recommendations include a, a public interest defense and a, a whistleblower entity will, will government a were officials, can leak material or blow the whistle to an independent body. there have been several cases. i'm sorry to interrupt you. there been several cases over the over the years where, where there was indeed a public interest defense. and for the most part, the cases against these people fell apart. and frankly, i think the u. k was probably stronger for it. that system while protecting legitimate secrets seemed to work. so why change it unless you can carve out one of these public interests sta, defenses is that even possible? well, when the official secrets laws were originally being pushed through, they were considered by many to represent a danger to civil liberties and

a free press. yes, so decades and decades ago you mentioned 1911, i think being was the 1st ones. and so the public interest defense was a compromise. it was a way that the government was able to say, okay, fine, we're going to have a public interest offense. the walls are going to have a provision that that requires us to show damage, right? as a result of a release. but after a couple of cases collapsed in the favor of the defendants or the government simply eliminated the public interest defense or was margaret thatcher's government. when they pushed through the 1989 official secrets act which removed the public interest defense i had previously existed. and when you look at legislation, this isn't uncommon. it's always easier to accept some minor concessions to push through and otherwise draconian law and then come back later when nobody is watching or paying attention and eliminate those few concessions or protections. however, minor, they may have been, so we're her. yeah, i don't know how many people even noticed when the 1989 law and up removing via the

public interest offense a few years earlier, a british civil servant, clive haunting, had used these defense successfully when he was prosecuted for leaking information . a regarding the sinking of an argentinian battle cruiser when it was sailing away when it would no longer pose a threat that's doing the the falklands war. and basically he leaked information, i think that showed that the government had lied in parliament. and after he was prosecuted, he raises defense. he was found not guilty by the jury. despite a very hostile judge that effectively told the jury to convict him, strangely enough, why and yet he found not guilty. and then the government subsequently decided they wanted to modify the laws and remove that, that, that protection or that the defense as it were. i remember that that was the general bell grotto, the name of that ship. here in the united states mohammed,

there is some discussion on capitol hill, thanks to representative ill hon. omar, about reforming the espionage act, the american espionage act, to make it more directly apply to people who are working on behalf of a foreign government to do harm to the united states. as things stand now, anybody who in any way miss handles purportedly classified information is subject to an espionage charge. well, now we have a situation where we have president biden, former president trump, former vice president and pence, all having been found with classified documents in their homes. so do we charge them with espionage? of course not. it just points to the ridiculous over use of this law wire. britain's not having that same debate weakening or at least reforming the espionage laws rather than strengthening them. so as an interesting question, i mean the, when the law commission, i was asked to review whenever the law commissions us to review a law,

it will put out a call to papers, right? they will ask people, members of the public to submit their comments and many people push backs and we need a restoration of the public interest, the fans, winnie protection for media, et cetera. and the law commission ended up taking on board some of the recommendations. but bear in mind, britain's, like all people need to be aware of a phenomenon in order to debate it. it's not like the b, b, c in and, and child for and i, tv, sky, news, and, and other brought met, you know, mainstream establishment news outlets or banging on about this law. right? people can only, can only push back or critique a proposed bill, a proposed law if they're aware of it, if they're where of the implications. and as a general rule, that's not the case when we see national security laws or alleged national security laws being pushed through. i mean, since 911, there have been at least 16 or 17 so called terrorism laws are terrorism related

laws. they've been passed this almost one every year. and since 911, in fact, since before 911, since the terrorism act 2000. so wow. yeah. most people probably aren't even aware of them. non governmental organizations in the u. k. are working against changes to the official secrets act saying that toughening them would be an assault against human rights. can you explain to us exactly what that means? so for those who have properly examined the law and i, i recommend strongly recommend people check out my article, a consortium news that covered this just because went on for like 4000 words because the, the bills are just so long. right. and i kept wanting to cover various provisions, but it's clear that leakers, whistleblowers journalists, publishers, and any other member of the public who receives copies shares or in any other way handles restricted that's not even classified as restricted material commits an offense under section one of this proposed law if something called

a foreign power condition is satisfied. now unfortunately is very easy for the foreign power condition to be satisfied. and many people saw that condition and thought, oh, this has nothing to do with journalism. this will just impact people who are spying for foreign government. but if you read the foreign power condition and see how it can be satisfied in order to be prosecuted or charged under section one. and if one works for an organization funded in whole, or in part by foreign power, that itself could satisfy the condition. so you, john, you work for an organization that in whole or in part let say it's funded by a r t or, or al jazeera or france 24 or an, or even radio free europe, which is funded by the us state department. and the, you know, that would satisfy the foreign power condition. so if someone leaks material to you and you discuss it or you publish it, boom, you've been now and you've now triggered the foreign power condition. and you can be prosecuted. and you could be prosecuted and you face up in a life sentence,

right? whereas the typical sentence that one would face now if there been prosecuted under the official secret 2nd. 1998 is around 2 years is the typical sentence one faces. the bill also allows the government to designate non military sites as prohibited, prohibited places, and can imprison and one for life for phil remain coming close to or entering such a site or engage in direct action, which in any way damages are prohibited place for life. so activists who have targeted weapons, or any other installation that currently is not deemed prohibited place, but could be designated one in the future even if they don't actually jeopardize any one's life or a national security in any way. you know, they go in, they spray paint something, there's a court case which is determined that even chopped spray paints, which can be washed away with water, could be considered damage under, under various legislation. now such people could face life in prison. so those are

some examples, i mean it's a very large bill, but some examples as to why people are those who are aware of what's going on quite concerned with the human rights implications of this bill. so if you're a nun who wants to protest nuclear weapons and you go to the outer fence of a military base and, and chain yourself to it or throw paint on it. you're looking at the possibility of a life sentence in prison. now. yeah, and i think less a, even a judge decided not to give you a life sentence. um, when you're being pushed, you're be encouraged by the states to think of a thing in terms of life sentences when a what is that a, what's the likelihood now that you're going to get off with a simple fine because yeah, when you look at the wording is strange, it should say up to life, but the wording and section one and the other sections as well. it says a fine or life sentence or both. oh mike, which are fine, right?

so either they need to rephrase it or they genuinely intend for it to be a mandatory life sentence. if the judge determines a fine is not necessarily we are speaking with journalist mohammed al massey about efforts to strengthen already draconian national security laws in the u. k. we're going to take a short break and come right back stating. 2 lou needs to come to the russian state total narrative. i've status on the northland scheme development. i'm not getting all sunset for a week within the city battle disability on i need to final speed you went home with. we will van in the european

union, the kremlin media machine, the state on russia today and spoke r t spoke neck, given our video agency, roughly all band on youtube with me. since hi, i'm rec sanchez, and i'm here to play with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my, your show seriously. why watch something that so different my little opinions that you won't get anywhere else work of it. please do have the state department, the c i a weapons makers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your facts for you, go ahead by change and whatever you do. don't watch my show,

stay mainstream because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way. mm. thing ah, welcome back to the whistle blowers i'm john kerry. aku, were speaking with journalist mohammed muzzy about potential changes to britain's official secrets, act the strengthening of an already onerous espionage law. welcome back mohammed. good. have you with us. thank you mama, continuing with this issue of human rights. several members of both the house of commons and the house of lords have complained that proposed changes to the official secrets act or, or any kind of strength and new legislation. just simply go too far. the proposals described as the biggest overhaul of security legislation in more than a generation. and it's expected to provide the security services with greater

powers than they have ever had before. the implication is that the law in a new form would be used to target russia and china. so what is the quote unnecessary interference in human rights? that detractors are complaining about? so in addition to the kinds of issues are raised before a for example, a life sentence or potential life sentence for handling restricted material. the equating of whistle blowing in journalism to espionage section one also applies to any human being anywhere in the world. you k citizen or not. so people think about how the u. s. espionage act is being used to prosecute julianna's on the non u. s. citizen who never agreed er er to sought to adhere to u. s. state secrecy laws. who is based outside of the united states for publishing information as a publisher. and it's, it's the 1st time that the u. s. is applying its domestic criminal law against

somebody who's based outside of the united states, while at the same time, claiming that 1st amendment protections don't apply to him because he's not a us citizen, strangely enough. um, that seems to be what they want to be able to do with this bill. so currently the official secrets act applies to you k citizens and i and, and i'm, i'm not sure if at all is there any provisions that apply to k susan's abroad here in theory they could use it to prosecute you, let's say you are, as i say, if you're, you're working for a foreign funded foreign state funded outlet or in or even organization transparency international received some funding from foreign from foreign said sodas, amnesty international. i mean there many organizations which received part funding from a foreign government. i'm you receive or, or even simply report on you not even the, the 1st person to receive a leak, right? you could simply be reporting on a story that i broken, but because your reporting on it and this restricted material,

if they so wish they could seek your expedition and seek to prosecute you for it. um, also as another example, there's no harm or damage as a result of a leak or publication as needed. whereas previously it was an pre it is on the current official secrets act legislation. they're getting rid of that on the national security bill. also typically, all right, i already mentioned actually the fact that typically people receive 2 years imprisonment rather than an hour. they would face a life sentence. there are other so called barriers to prosecution that have been removed. i'm one of them being already mentioned, no need to prove damages. oh yeah, there's also a 14 year sentence for obtaining or disclosing trade secrets. this is under separate section. also no public interest defense. there either. wow. so you face severe imprisonment for violating corporate secrecy, right? trade secrets as they pertain to corporations, not even the state, but no ability to defend oneself on the merits of a disclosure, i. e, with

a public interest defense, say that this corporation has been violating this law or abusing human rights. and i dunno, some country somewhere and you get a, you get a, a documents that, that reveals that well, in theory you could, that would in, might involve obtaining or disclosing a trade secret. i'm, there is an interesting aside, i'll just quickly mention it. there is one provision that also amends a previous law called a serious crime act from 2007. to note that the serious crime act cannot be used to prosecute members of m. i 5 am i 6, g, c, h q, or the armed forces for any criminal conduct committed outside the u. k. if their criminal conduct is deemed, quote necessary for the proper function and quote of those institutions. so that's an interesting thing. they're trying to sneak in there, so i'm not sure what any of this has to do, but protecting britain from russia or china. but it certainly does open a massive gateway to potentially prosecuting whistleblowers journalists,

publishers and others who do national security reporting or any other kind of reporting that's based on restricted material. and it also seems the grants and completely unnecessary immunity for members of the birth armed forces and others who commit criminal offenses abroad. it sounds like something to see, i would love to see enacted into law in united states. we've already seen what the british government has done to target julian assange at the behest of the united states. what do you think these changes would do to the average britain? and just as importantly, or maybe more importantly, what would the impact be on journalism? you're a journalist, how would this impact you just going about your normal day performing? your job will the average grid probably won't even be aware of the long, less one day. somebody decides to pick them up and charge them for publishing material on their blog for sample that the, it turns out to be restrictive material. maybe they decide they want a sort of

a case to hang somebody on to, to send a message. but i'm, if you take together all the various charges and offences that i've described and others haven't had an opportunity to discuss it effectively allows for the criminalization of journalism, generally, a national security and investigative journalism more, more specifically, this adds to the chill factor which will already exist for many people who don't want to or afraid of, of reporting on matter, say critical of nato because of the current climate here in the u. k. it allows the british state and his allies to paint detractors and those who publish material, which is critical of the establishment or establishment norms and narratives to be painted as agents of a foreign power without actually having to prove any such connection. beyonce being an employee of a foreign funded organisation or simply being a recipient of restricted material provided by a foreign power. or as i pointed out, simply receiving information from

a foreign state actor. there's even a, a provision that says am, if it can be argued that you have violated the provisions here with the intent to benefit a foreign power. the foreign power condition is satisfied and they don't even have to name the foreign power when you're being prosecuted. they can just keep it vague while so yeah, that sir, not good news as it were. and i would say it perhaps one of the most draconian anti journalism, anti free speech laws we've ever seen in the u. k. at least in the last 100 years. if not longer, forgive me if i'm repeating myself, but it's one thing to attack a government employ for disclosing classified information to the public without clearance. we can certainly have a conversation about the appropriateness of doing that. in actuality, it is appropriate in my view when it's done in the public interest to expose a crime like torture for example. so what would this law if it's an acted mean for

legitimate whistleblowers? like i said, i know i sound like a broken record, but the legal definition of whistle blowing is bringing to light any evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, or threats to the public health or public safety. so how much worse would this legislation make life for national security whistleblowers? well, the provisions a can be used against leakers whistleblowers journalists and anybody else who handles restricted material. and what's true for journalism publishers is also true for whistleblowers. and if you think about it, what whistleblower is going to want to risk life in prison? that's where, okay, if they, if they leak material to the b, b, c, they're unlikely to be successfully prosecuted elise under section one of the national security bel, but bear in mind they're still the official secrets acts. the 1989 act, for example, that they can use. but what of the b? b. c doesn't do any story on a leak to them. don't forget that. edward snowden had apparently contacted multiple

people before contacting a grand a gland greenwald as friend laura porches. if i recall correctly, so you know what options do you have if you can't or, i mean the options available to whistle blowers and leakers is greatly diminished if they can't seek out alternative media sources. and, and you know, less be fair. sometimes the only major alternatives are belong to of a government funded outlet. that's a government, that's not your government. so, you know, l z will publish things the amazon be see, might not a voice of america might publish things that you won't get, you know, domestically and, and russia. and then you have our tv, you know, you have all these concern, news outlets that are either owned by major corporations or it is to some degree funded by a foreign states. and now your options have greatly diminished if you're only places that you could leak to whistle blow to our british establishment outlets. i'm. and as i said already at the 1st part of my answer,

who is going to want to risk? yes, one thing to be prepared to, to face 2 years in prison as another thing to be prepared to face life in prison. you're absolutely right. mohammed, i'll mazin thank you so much for joining us. mohammed is a u. k based freelance journalist and contributor to numerous outlets including the dissenter, jacobin the canary and electronic intifada. i've always believed that if you have integrity, nothing else matters. if you don't have integrity, nothing else matters. so live your life. the way your children want you to live your life in fairness carrying an integrity. that's what they'll think of you. it doesn't matter then what governments do. thanks for joining us for another episode of the whistleblowers. i'm john kerry. aku. we'll see you next time. with. 2 2 news

what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy even foundation, let it be an arms race is on offense. very dramatic development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time. time to sit down and talk with

november 22nd 2022 outraged orthodox christians confronted ukrainian security service offices looking entrances and exits to keep the oldest monastery. they were looking for a russian spies among the monks. we mean dealer seaman, nurse, or foam reason for the brutal crack down one church. his parishioners had song, a song about russia. ah, it's long been reason enough to condemn any old adult christian attack in prison and even kill them. russia, what are you russia? finance? because when you love store new store,

grow our slider venue and your total thought us, you use a new phone i use from this dog with ah, general elections have started in nigeria, africa's most populous nation, add largest economy, will elected president, vice president and members of parliament also had the collective west must accept the fact that there are other players on the world arena. and the security of the country should not be pursued at the expense of others. russia and china flam. the west for attempting to monopolize security at the expense of other nations as a un security council most over a pass to please for you. praying and a palace.