Censorship – Page 2

YouTube Censorship Case

YouTube Censorship Case

Re: Legality of Censoring videos on YouTube, esp. those that question the Covid narrative

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

Dates: Oct 11, 2021
Location: Cologne, Germany
Court: Regional Court of Cologne
Case #:
Plaintiff: allesaufdentisch

Defendant: YouTube & Google
Trial Type:
Judge:
Status: End
Verdict: For The Plaintiff

Background

Dozens of prominent German actors have banded together as part of the “allesaufdentisch” (everything on the table) freedom of expression campaign to demand a more open discussion on the Corona virus and the controversial government policies, rules and regulations. Their statements were posted in the form of short videos on YouTube. (4)

the group of leading actors, performers, artists state: “We are watching the development of political action in the Corona crisis with increasing concern. Many experts have not yet been heard in the public Corona debate. We would like to see a wide-ranging, fact-based, open and factual discourse and also an equally wide-ranging discussion of the videos.” (4)

Each actor posted a YouTube video criticizing the current suppressive policies. (4)

The site was started in September by actor Volker Bruch and others (3)

Two videos were deleted by YouTube for allegedly spreading Covid “misinformation”. (1) and reasons such as “violating community guidelines.” (4)

Specifically, it is about the videos with the titles “Fear” and “Incidence”. In “Angst”, the actor and cabaret artist Gernot Haas speaks with the neurobiologist Gerald Hüther. For several years, Hüther was on the advisory board of the online magazine Rubikon, which is criticized for spreading conspiracy ideologies. In the second video concerned, the singer and songwriter Jakob Heymann interviews the mathematician Stephan Luckhaus, who left the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina in the course of a rejected critical contribution to the lockdown. (6)

German national leading daily Bild below reported on YouTube’s controversial removal of the videos: “YouTube is not a truth commission that decides what is right and what is wrong,” (4)

According to attorney Steinhöfel, who is part of the campaign himself in conversation with actor Wotan Wilke Möhring on the subject of freedom of expression, legal steps were taken on Monday morning. The deletions are unlawful and “a new dimension in the violation of the law by YouTube”. (6)

The court ruled that YouTube must restore the 2 deleted videos. (1)
YouTube did not tell the channel operators precisely enough which passages in their opinion violated which provision of their guidelines, a court spokeswoman said on Monday when asked. (3)
The Cologne Regional Court issued an injunction, ruling that YouTube’s deletion of the videos was illegal,” reported Bild, which has a copy of the court order.(5)

“According to the court, the deletion of the videos in which the artists interviewed Leipzig mathematics professor Stephan Luckhaus (68) and neurobiologist Gerald Hüther (70) was ‘unjustified’.” (5)

According to Bild: “YouTube did not explain which specific statements were classified as problematic” and that “the artists were not informed which passage of the video is said to have violated the guidelines”. (5)
YouTube is obligated to specify precisely what the problem is, and cannot rely on vague reasons, the court rules. (5)
Bild adds:

Even more: YouTube was only allowed to delete videos in the case of ‘an obvious, at first glance recognizable medical misinformation’ without naming concrete problematic passages. In the case of the deleted videos of #allesaufdentisch, however, it is a matter of ‘longer videos’ that ‘also contain a large number of clearly permissible statements.’” (5)

Aftermath

The platform company is now filing an objection.
Lawyer Joachim Steinhoefel was delighted by the Cologne Court ruling, and told BILD: “The Civil Chamber 28 of the Regional Court of Cologne has made it clear to the censorship machinery of the monopolist YouTube within hours that constitutional boundaries have been crossed here.” (5)
Some members of the group of actors spoke to Bild on their motives behind the government critical videos: “We are trying to talk to people. That’s democracy. To erase our voices is the sad opposite of that.”(5)

Further Research

…More information needed…

Media

Bild reports on Youtube Censorship

source: ..

Deleted Video of Math Prof. Luckhaus

source: allesaufdentisch

Deleted Video of Neurobiologist Hüther

source: allesaufdentisch

Back to All Cases

DrWhiteCensureCase

Dr White Censure Case

Re: Legality of Censuring & Ostracizing Employment based on giving professional expert opinions regarding Covid

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

Dates: (Hearing) Nov 4 2021
Location: Royal Courts of Justice, London, England
Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division Administrative Court
Case #: CO/3095/2021
Plaintiff: Dr. Sam White

Defendant: The General Medical Council
Trial Type: Decision Review of the Interim Orders Tribunal
Judge: The Honourable Justice Dove
Status: Final Ruling
Verdict: For The Plaintiff

** This case was reviewed & edited by the plaintiff Dr White

Background

Dr. Sam White is a UK General Practitioner with over 17 years experience. He now practices independently in functional medicine. In 2020, he was working as a doctor and partner in a Hampshire medical practice. Shortly after the announcement of the pandemic he became concerned about the entire government narrative, and the medical measures being recommended by NHS England for Covid19. He felt it was antithetical to all of his prior understanding of what medicine is, and should be.

He realized that the testing was grossly unreliable and the agenda was moving very rapidly toward experimental anti-Covid immunization injections, referred to as vaccines- developed and brought onto the market under EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). Dr. White’s own research into these gene based therapies had led him to believe they were not safe or efficacious as advertised, and that to administer them to his patients would cause a personal ethical conflict with his doctor’s Hippocratic Oath to ‘first, do no harm’. There had never been a successful Coronavirus vaccine brought to market and the SARS-CoV-1 animal studies (in which all of the animals developed antibody dependent enhancement) had convinced him that the proposed vaccine schedule would be extremely dangerous. He did not want any part of it.

In these circumstances, Dr. White felt he had to resign from his practice in early 2021. He had already written detailed submissions on his research in his five year re-validation and re-licensing with the GMC in late 2020. He had said he would resign if experimental mRNA vaccines were introduced, while safe and proven therapeutics continued to be suppressed. Neither the NHS or GMC took any notice whatsoever and they certainly were not concerned about the content of what he had written. In April 2021, Dr White’s re-licensing for a further 5 years was approved by a ‘Responsible Officer’ acting on behalf of the GMC. Dr White’s concerns only became a problem for NHS England and the GMC when he subsequently posted a video on social media (see below) in June 2021 (1) explaining to the public why he resigned. Dr White’s reasons for resigning only became of concern to the regulator once over 1 million members of the public were privy to his views. Dr White was first suspended by NHS England by emergency order (by the same ‘Responsible Officer’ who just two months prior had recommended his re-licensing) and subsequently also by the GMC.

Among other reasons he explained that …

He could no longer work in his previous roles ‘because of the lies’ surrounding the NHS and government approach to the pandemic which have been ‘so vast’ he could no longer ‘stomach or tolerate’ them. He claimed doctors and nurses were ‘having their hands tied behind their backs’ preventing them from using treatments that had been established as being effective both as prophylaxis from Covid19 infections and as treatments for it.

Once this video went viral, both the NHS and GMC made allegations that Dr White might be suffering a profound mental health disorder and being disinhibited. They felt able to make such allegations, without any medical assessment whatsoever.

Dr White’s law firm wrote a complaint letter (3) to the Chief Executive of NHS England on 2nd July stating (among other points) that:

My client has instructed me to write to you setting out the complaint that he has been
victimized and harassed for telling the truth by the organization you head.
Clinicians should feel able to voice genuine concerns relating to alleged malpractice
without fear for their ability to practice within the NHS being suspended.
The truth that Dr White is telling may be uncomfortable for you to hear. But hear it you
must. I am instructed to copy this letter to the relevant regulators as well as law enforcement.

No reply was ever received to this letter.

Dr. White’s license to practice was later reinstated, but made conditional on a number of measures with instructions from the Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) hearing on 17th Aug 2021. Prior to this hearing, Dr White had submitted hundreds of pages of evidence to the tribunal including both expert witness testimony and peer reviewed literature detailing all of the reasoning for each of his claims. By comparison, the GMC relied merely on 18 (out of over 1 million) anonymized complainants citing allegations of ‘misinformation-’ without any evidence that it was indeed, ‘misinformation.’ The IOT commenced proceedings that day by announcing that they were not there to determine ‘matters of fact.’ Despite this, they sided entirely with the GMC, repeating the claim that Dr White was citing misinformation.

These conditions required that he refrain from posting further information about his pandemic views on social media for a period of at least 18 months. The orders were vague and not specified. His solicitor sought clarification but this was denied.

The controversial conditions at the heart of the IOT to impose conditions on his registration were as follows:

“4. He must not use social media to put forward or share any views about the Covid-19 pandemic and its associated aspects.
5. He must seek to remove any social media posts he has been responsible for or has shared relating to his views of the Covid19 pandemic and its associated aspects.” (6)

In several respects, treatment by his professional body bore remarkable similarities to the fate of Swiss cardiologist, Dr. Thomas Binder, who spoke out in April 2020 and was arrested and subjected to a psychiatric examination while held in custody for one week (2 & 5).

Although Dr. White has fully explained, for example during testimony given to the German Corona Investigative Committee (4), that his views are evidence based and founded on his considerable scientific research, the GMC maintained that he was spreading misinformation that could present a risk to patients.

Significance

First case in the UK to overturn an illegal gag order placed on a UK doctor censured by his professional body for posting his scientifically researched views on the Covid crisis on social media.

Plaintiff’s (Claimant’s) Argument

Dr White’s lawyers, led by Francis Hoar instructed by PJH Law, appealed under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, although the law may be subject to conditions or restrictions necessary in a democratic society. Surely doctors should never be silenced in a democratic society?

Dr White said: “If I lose my ability to speak freely, so will other doctors.” (5)

Important to understand is that the rights and wrongs of Dr. White’s treatment were argued not on the basis of the views he expressed but on the basis of his fundamental human right to free speech.

Defendant’s Argument

The GMC’s argument was represented by Alexis Hearnden

The defendants argument was based on the assertion that Dr. White was spreading ‘misleading information’ that could present a risk to patient health. This extract from the Judge’s summation of the court decision is illustrative of the content:

“- Through a social media video, Dr White spread misinformation and inaccurate details about the Coronavirus and how it is diagnosed and treated, including saying the vaccine is a form of genetic manipulation which can cause serious illness and death and that he advised against wearing masks. “

Relevant Prior Judgements

…More information is needed…

Decision

The judgement passed by The Honourable Justice Dove on 3rd Dec 2021 restored Dr White’s freedom of speech and the IOT conditions were nullified (5)

(See below for) Sam White’s video to his followers, 3rd Dec. 2021 (7)

Aftermath

This case is not over as far as Dr. White and his lawyers are concerned. Dr. White is determined to be vindicated in his evidence based scientific assessment of what is the best medical practice for Covid19 prevention / treatment. His lawyers have sent a number of questions addressed to the CEO of NHS England. (8)

This case is not over as far as Dr. White and his lawyers are concerned. Dr. White is determined to be vindicated in his evidence based scientific assessment of what is good for his patients.

His lawyers have sent a (a letter with a) number of questions addressed to the CEO of NHS England … Amanda Pritchard explaining how many of his June predictions had now been proved right. (8)

The letter (8) says that:

‘the public have had their health, wellbeing and lives put at risk because the NHS adhered to government diktat by cutting the role of primary care and keeping GPs out of the loop with Covid cases throughout 2020. As a consequence of that decision, early diagnosis and treatment was denied to many patients and prophylactic therapeutic treatments, used elsewhere to great effect, were being denied to NHS patients.’
The 12-page letter goes on to say how the introduction of the vaccine passport will compromise informed consent and could prevent patients exercising free will in consenting to vaccination.
It also criticizes masks and says: ‘Wearing face coverings in health care settings had not been properly risk-assessed. There is evidence that masks do harm, particularly children.’ (7)

Dr White’s focus will now: be on protecting children from the experimental mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, as they can cause myocarditis.

He said: ‘The outcomes for myocarditis are not “mild”, as the government like to tell us. It’s a condition that has a 50 per cent mortality rate after five years and 20 per cent after one year. It is extremely serious. It can kill and is a problem for healthy young men who get the vaccine who are at virtually no risk from Covid.
‘But the guilt has now lifted. I can tell people what’s going on and share the peer review evidence I have. One of the most important bits of information is if you’ve had Covid, your immunity is long lasting and robust, whereas Pfizer vaccine immunity for example, begins to wane after six months. People should be told this before they are vaccinated as part of informed consent, but it is generally ignored.’

Further, a complaint letter (9) was sent on 7th Dec addressed to Charlie Massey, Chief Executive of the General Medical Council. The complaint is about a Doctor Hilary Jones registered with the GMC, who regularly appears on Good Morning Britain news show. The specific question is whether Dr Jones made misleading and untrue statements which posed a risk to patient safety and whether the GMC took sufficient action to establish this or not following an anonymous complaint (E2-7599ZL) lodged with them on 12th August 2021. (ref link).

Further actions are also planned soon.

Further Research

Media

Dr. White Interview -Jan 16, 2022

source: TLA-Vagabond

Dr. White’s Social Media Post, June 4 2021

**banned video**

source: shortXXvids

Dr White’s Testimony to Corona-Ausschuss

source: longXXvids

Dr White Announces Verdict

source: shortXXvids

Back to All Cases

Fake Jab Pass Case

Fake Jab Pass Case

Re: the Legality of a Medical Doctor Certifying a Person as “Vaccinated” when they are not, in order to spare them the Dangers of Injury or Death from a Mandated Untested Toxic Injection.

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

Dates: June 2023
Location: Germany
Court: Regional Court of Bochum
Case #:
Plaintiff: State prosecutor Tophoff
Defendant’s Lawyer: Wilfried Schmitz

Defendant: Dr. Heinrich Habig, Fatima Habig
Trial Type: Criminal Complaint
Judge: Petra Breywisch-Lepping
Status: Ongoing – Under Appeal
Verdict: Guilty (partial verdict)

*updated July 10, 2023

Background

Dr. Heinrich Habig is a 67 year-old medical doctor with his own practice who, in dealing with patients wishing to avoid taking the Covid-19 injections for valid safety concerns, yet needing to participate in society for work or family needs, issued vaccination certificates without actually injecting his patients. (1)

Dr. Habig was reported to the police by another doctor, observed by the police for a period following which his practice was raided on 21st January 2022 and records removed. (1)

Another sad climax in the case occurred on 14 May 2022 when police officers picked up Heinrich Habig from the flat of an acquaintance and took him to the Bochum correctional institution (JVA). The 67-year-old doctor has now been in pre-trial detention there under strict security measures for over a year. Charges were only brought on 12 November 2022. The trial began in January 2023. (1)

Difficult prison conditions

… Dr. Habig’s wife, Fatima Habig [who is a co-defendant, having been accused of aiding and abetting her husband] was only allowed to visit her husband twice a month under supervision for about one hour. In addition to the presence of a prison officer, the prosecutor Tophoff requested the presence of a woman who listens in on the Habig couple’s conversations – pure harassment, according to lawyer Wilfried Schmitz. During one of these visits, the couple talked about past holidays, which led the prosecution to assume that there was an “increased risk of absconding”. (3)

Due to the allegedly increased risk of escape, the 67-year-old accused was even transported to court in hand and foot cuffs, which were removed from him only shortly before he entered the courtroom. After the trial days, the doctor often had to wait for hours in the cold court cellar, also with hand and foot cuffs on, until he was brought back to the prison. Only when lawyer Schmitz for Heinrich Habig and lawyer Stefan Schlüter for Fatima Habig were called in as elective defence lawyers in February did they ensure that the shackles were removed. (3)

The two grandchildren (eight and ten years old) have only been allowed to visit their grandfather once in prison. Before his pre-trial detention, they were with their grandparents every day. Another human low point occurred on Heinrich Habig’s birthday, which was also the day of the trial: Fatima Habig took two steps towards her husband at the end of the trial day to congratulate him, which promptly led to frantic shouts from the judge for the prison officers, who then prevented the couple from hugging briefly. (3)

A partial verdict was delivered by the judge in the week of June 26th 2023. (2)

An appeal against the verdict is possible.

Significance

First doctor in Germany to be given a severe jail sentence for issuing false vaccination certificates.

Plaintiff’s Argument

As trial observers report, the prosecutor actually stated in her plea that there were no cases of severe side effects of vaccination. Such claims were “contrarian ideology”. (2)

Defendant’s Argument

In his defence, Dr. Habig invoked his oath to the medical association. According to their professional code of conduct, he was forbidden to follow instructions which, in his eyes, were against his ethos and humanity. This was exactly the situation when people were forced to be “vaccinated”. (2)

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

Decision

Medical doctor, Heinrich Habig was sentenced to two years and ten months in prison for issuing vaccination certificates in 207 cases without vaccinating his patients. (2)

The trial for more than 400 other possible “fake vaccinations” will be continued in a month. If the doctor is also convicted in these cases, he could face up to five years in prison. Probably purely by chance, the law on “issuing false health certificates” was tightened in November 2021. (2)

Aftermath

Transition News wrote

Last week, German justice reached its nadir … This trial is not about justice, but only about making a political example to force people to obey, according to the motto: “Punish one, educate a hundred.”

Process observer and lawyer Chris Moser commented

that “The reasoning of the judgement leaves a lot to be desired … Only allegations were made, not a single subsumption. According to the court, there are no grounds for justification or excuse. Instead, the court accuses Heinrich Habig of having a ‘hostile attitude towards the law’. (4)(5)