i try to get internet is not community that i'm not going with this side of your party. i'm sure that the are a few that are happening here in the story. but he's, i'm say a company here and all the international bits that they went back to the top of the hour with more with with . 2 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 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's 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, quote aid or assist the enemy on quote. what that meant was open 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 5th 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 massey. 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, mama, 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 jer socialists, like jeremy corbin, we've come out against the bell, but there is majority support from the labor party. why the by care st. armor and found 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, the most severe recommendations. but none of the actual safeguards 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. what will government 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 and 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 our 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 the a 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. right, when it was sailing away, when it would no longer pose a threat that's doing the the falcons 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 though 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 that's an interesting question. i mean the, when the law commission a 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 to 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 is 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 or 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 consortium news that covered this just because went on for like 4000 words because the of the bills are just so long. right. and i kept wanting to cover various provisions, but it's clear that leeker is whistleblowers journalists, publishers, and any other member of the public who receives copies shares or in any other way handles restricted does not even classify the says, restricted material commits an offense under section one of this proposed law, if something called the 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 and whole, or import by foreign power, that itself could satisfy the condition. so you, john, you work for an organization that in whole or in part, let's 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 u. s. 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, or 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 secrets act 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 domain coming close to or entering such a site or engage in direct action, which in any way, damages a 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 anyone'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 being encouraged by the states to think and a think 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 my gosh, i find, 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 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. stay tuned. ah . 2 ah, ah ah ah, by the middle of the 19th century, practically the whole of india had been under the rule of the british empire. the

colonial authorities had imposed that heavy death bringing the people into poverty and were exporting natural resources. and moreover, these authorities absolutely had no consideration for the provisions of the local population, treating them like 2nd class citizens. the british were showing signs of disrespect even to those who cooperated with them. the fact of ignoring the religious beliefs of the hindus led to the mutiny of this. the boys mercenary soldiers serving under the british crown. rebellion began on the 10th of may 1857 in the garrison town of may river, north of india. in the form of a mutiny. the rebels quickly took over daily. the heroic resistance of the indian people lasted for one and a half years. however, the forces were not equal. the colonial authorities dealt with the rebels cruelly, the enslaves, the boys were tied to the mouth of the cannon and were shot right through their

bodies for the amusement of the public. this type of execution was called those with the obliteration of the mutiny resulted in the death of 800000 inhabitants of india. however, the british empire never broke the free spirit of the indians and their will are resisted. ah ah ah

ah welcome back to the whistle blowers i'm john carrie. 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, mom and 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 i raised before, 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 julian us on the non us citizen who never agreed 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 a and, and i am, i'm not sure if at all there any provisions that apply to you. k citizens 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. so does amnesty international? i mean there are 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 broke i, 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. i also, as another example, does no harm or damage as a result of a leak or publication as needed. whereas previously it was previously,

it is on the current official secrets act legislation. they're getting rid of that on the national security bill also typically are already mentioned actually the fact that typically people receive 2 years imprisonment rather than a now where 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. 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 be in, might involve obtaining or disclosing a trade secret. i'm,

there is an interesting aside, i'll just quickly mention either. there's 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 they're 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 whistleblower as journalists, publishers and others who do national security boarding or any other kind of reporting that's based on restricted material. and it also seems the grant and completely unnecessary immunity for members. the british armed forces and others

who commit criminal offenses abroad. it sounds like something to see. i would love to see enacted into lonnie 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 brit 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 his 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 and 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 organization 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, there is 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. wow. 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. so 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 are 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, edward snowden, i had apparently contacted multiple people before contacting a grand glen 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 0. publish things that emma's nbc might not the 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 says some degree funded by a foreign states. and now your options have greatly diminished if you're only places that you could leak to or whistle blow to our british establishment outlets . i'm. and as i've 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 al 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 here 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 whistle blowers. i'm john kerry. aku, we'll see you next time. ah. 2 2 2 ah, i think russia in the 21st century has taken several

opportunities to try to see if they would be interested in the west to create new boundaries to create a new relationship. and as you mentioned, time and time and time again, it would get flatly rejected because we have sort of pushed russia into this corner, ideologically attitude, way to say you're the adversary. you're the, we may not be in a formal bipolar ideological cold war anymore. but we're not going to allow a new relationship to develop with a rec, sanchez, and i'm here to plead with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my your show seriously. why watch something that's so different. my little opinions that you won't get anywhere else. look, if it pleases you to have the state department, the cia weapons makers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your facts for you. go ahead. i 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 want to watch it because it might just change to wayne thing. ah, polls close in nigeria as africa's most popular nation's largest economy chooses it's next president to i'm with his destination down in the case if you volunteer them all this get an attempt to stop the relentless advance of log not according to the russian military, thousands rally in berlin, calling for peace talks by ukraine. i'm confirming that government bombing here also coming up this out.