As many of you will already know, I was excluded from the public gallery of the Alex Salmond trial yesterday. Inside the High Court, in the queue to enter the courtroom, I was suddenly taken aside by the police and told I was barred. The prosecution had made an application to the judge for an order for my removal which the judge had agreed, over a “possible contempt of court.”
I asked the police – who were very pleasant – if they could tell me where the possible contempt lay, but they had no information. Later I phoned the court and was eventually phoned back by the clerk of the court, who was also very pleasant, but he could not tell me where the possible contempt lay either. He could however tell me I was excluded for the duration of the case, not just for the day.
I have to say that I find this process very unsatisfactory. To be excluded from a public trial on the basis of something I have “possibly” done, when nobody will even specify what it is I have “possibly” done, seems to me a very strange proceeding. I can only assume that it is something I have written on this blog as there has been no incident or disturbance of any kind inside the courtroom. But if the judge is genuinely concerned that something I have written is so wrong as to necessitate my exclusion, you would expect there would be a real desire for the court to ask me to amend or remove that wrong thing. But as nobody will even tell me what that wrong thing might “possibly” be, it seems only reasonable to conclude that they are not genuinely concerned, in a legal sense, about something I have written.
I will state openly that if the court asked me to remove or change anything I have written, I would certainly do that. But they have not asked me. They have just chucked me out without explanation. I do not find that satisfactory. It also seems to me very strange indeed, and quite contrary to natural justice, that the prosecution and the judge were formally discussing in secret a motion for my exclusion, while I was standing right outside their door. I was not given a hearing, allowed to be present, or even told it was happening. They knew I was there because the police then came straight to me. That seems to me contrary to all principles of natural justice. I am not a terrorist who needed to be secretly surveilled and dealt with in camera while excluded.
I do not doubt the judge may have the legal powers to do this. But the law is then wrong. Not to mention that this behaviour is extremely discourteous – she should at least have called me in and told me why. That would have taken a minute. And I then could also have removed any material she wished.
All of which – and the threat of prosecution for contempt which carries a maximum sentence of two years in jail – is very unpleasant. But what is far worse is the terrible feeling of helplessness that has resulted. I have scarcely slept at all this night, and it really was a dark night of the soul. Having seen the crushing power of the state operate against both Julian Assange and Alex Salmond in the last month has been dreadful. It is of course, at a philosophical level, the state’s use and abuse of its monopoly of violence, including the violent enforcement of deprivation of liberty. I am excluded from the court by the state’s monopoly of violence, as I would discover very soon if I attempted to re-enter. I find the violence of the state, and its enforcement by officialdom, a more brutal and horrible thing than personal violence, which I abhor. It has kept me awake, in a sea of desolation, to think that how Julian and Alex feel tonight must be a million times worse than I am feeling, which is bad enough.
But it is also the helplessness. In both the Assange and Salmond cases, I felt strongly that by bringing the full and detailed facts of the court proceedings into the light, I was at least doing something for truth and honesty. The detailed accounts I could write in each instance presented a picture that was entirely different to the selective and horribly skewed view of the proceedings being fed to the populace by the state and corporate media. Even if my accounts reached only a few thousand people, a world where a few thousand people know the truth is better than a world of absolute darkness, by a factor of infinity.
Being deprived of that ability at least to hold a little candle in the darkness, at least to bear quiet witness to the truth, has just left me also in darkness. That is where I have been all night, unsleeping, fevered and restless. And today I shall not be in court.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-7/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-8/
With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.
This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
“In both the Assange and Salmond cases, I felt strongly that by bringing the full and detailed facts of the court proceedings into the light, I was at least doing something for truth and honesty. The detailed accounts I could write in each instance presented a picture that was entirely different to the selective and horribly skewed view of the proceedings being fed to the populace by the state and corporate media”.
Exactly so. In view of the events Mr Murray has described, the conclusion seems inescapable that the real concern of the authorities was not to avoid contempt of court, but to preserve the screen of vague disinformation which it is the mainstream media’s job to maintain.
Mr Murray’s precise, detailed and accurate reports were hammering a large nail into that balloon of misconception. As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) declared:
“Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman”.
That being so, one has to ask, who would be strongly opposed to sunlight?
If anything is a contempt of court by the media then the Daily Record’s front page today (Friday) must surely be so. The front page is a statement, without quotation marks, of the prosecution’s vitriolic characterisation of Alex Salmond as a ‘sexual predator’ and more.
H Scott
Funny how none of the British State media have been barred from court for their one sided reporting. Is reporting only one side – the prosecution side – of a court case where justice is in Scotland and the UK.
You would think in a normal country the Daily Redcoat might have something important to say about the coronavirus on its front page – nope anti independence propaganda always comes first with these Britnat rags.
My question entirely. Why is the defence not raising an objection of contempt?
Dear Craig. Having witnessed first hand the machinations of the state in Julian Assange’s extradition hearings in Marylebone Magistrates Court I am not at all surprised by this unfortunate news. And serious as it certainly is, it is nothing compared to a possible exclusion from the extradition hearings at Belmarsh in May. I fear that you are fast becoming public enemy number 2 and that the state is doing what it does best, protecting its own interests, at any cost at all. I hope I am wrong about you Craig because there are, as far as I know, only two people reporting, in the true sense of the word, on the Assange extradition, you and Monika Karbowska who, by the way was menaced and molested by Assange “supporters” while waiting in the queue outside Belmarsh on the first day of proceedings. You were there. I add that even though officials of Wikileaks were present, no official and detailed report was published by them. You have been our eyes and ears Craig. So now we are deaf and blind to the Salmond debacle and maybe also to that of our hero Julian Assange. All the better perhaps to escape the lies and the damned, diabolical injustice of it all. But 2020 is a symbol of perfect vision and soon the truth will be revealed. It is already there, obscured by the corruption, the lies and the wickedness, which must now be swept away. This process is already in motion. Take heart Craig. You have done your best! My life has been a relative failure. Yours has been a beacon of righteousness. I salute you.
John McGhee, “But 2020 is a symbol of perfect vision” Indeed John, the people have no excuse. Craig has has ripped off the pretend bandages and the dark virus soars above. Will they even NOW see, hear and feel the pain of others ?
Don’t let the bastards grind you down Craig. Without your reporting we we know only what made Alex Salmond look bad. You have been a real and invaluable insight into what has really been happening. Pick yourself, dust yourself off and get stuck into them ASAP. You said thank goodness for moles when you were excluded initially so keep digging somehow.
Well aren’t you the drama queen!
At least you’re not dying of Coronavirus in isolation in a strange hospital with no access to your loved ones.
Keep some perspective!
Why do you bring the fake ‘virus outbreak’ into such a serious matter?
Distraction perhaps.
Now 400 in a day, you may well change your mind when it’s people you know who start dying.
Heartbreaking video of 10 full pages of obituaries shows toll of COVID-19 in Italy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOrDFNVNyMI
What’s the coronavirus got to do with the Alex Salmond case and Craig Murray’s excellent coverage of same and his shameful treatment yesterday? Are you sure you don’t want to throw in global recession, the plight of people in Idlib, or starvation in Yemen as a few other nonsensical comparisons?
Roy David
There could be an important connection. The celebrity who gave a recorded interview on the most serious charge may have done so because he/she was in isolation due to the virus. As I understand it this meant no cross examination of the witness by the defence.
“At least you’re not dying of Coronavirus in isolation in a strange hospital with no access to your loved ones.”
Oh look…a squirrel… Goodwin…if you can’t see what the problem is here, you are part of it.
@ Goodwin
Did you forget to write the ” d ” that goes on the end of your name?
The truth is not allowed to come out.
Craig, I am extremely disappointed that this has happened. First of all for yourself because you have worked tirelessly to cut through the disinformation we are getting from other sources. And secondly for ourselves who will be deprived of a much needed perspective on this case.
I suspect that the “contempt” issue centres on complainant identification, particularly in connection with “jigsaw” identification of complainant A, taking into account what has been written a long time ago in the context of Salmond’s lawsuit against the Scottish government. The prosecution seems desperate to keep reporting restrictions very tight in this regard because, in my opinion, revelation of identities would show this whole thing up for the travesty it is.
Do it be too down about this, however. You have done enough to shed light on things that others have neglected. I, for one, appreciate what you have done. Keep on keeping on.
I’m sorry to say that some pennies dropped with me overnight. The reason for the behaviour of the rest of the media is that they are entirely confident of what the outcome of this case will be. The authorities who think you are guilty of contempt are not going to proceed until the outcome of the case is known — no need to, and if the outcome were to be acquital, not possible. I asked yesterday what sort of reasons would cause the judge to exclude an individual member of the public or reporter from a trial, and now I think I understand.
You are a good and brave man, and the world needs more people like you.
Frank Waring
‘The reason for the behaviour of the rest of the media is that they are entirely confident of what the outcome of this case will be.’
Or possibly they are not confident at all and are taking the opportunity to maximise the reputational damage to Salmond while they can and before any possible acquittal.
I certainly hope so.
Thank you Craig for your honest reporting from the High Court. So sad and concerning that you have been banned without any explanation and treated with utter disrespect. I feel cheated of significant information being withheld. You have single-handedly provided a vital public service in your reporting. Lots of questions need to be asked at the conclusion of these proceedings, not least the role played by the CPS and also Police Scotland. Not only is Alex standing trial … our Criminal Justice System is also in the Dock!
British justice. The best that money and power can buy.
Even in Scotland.
Why are these people so keen to supply ammo to their opponents who strive for an independent Scotland?
Craig, I am deeply grateful to you for your commitment to truth through exposing shady and shoddy behaviour of our governments and their institutions.
I am disgusted by the way you have been treated throughout the days of this trial. I hope it is some comfort to you to know that with your commentaries you have indeed brought what light there is to those of us unable to attend the court in person. You are in fact continuing to shine a light on the darkness pervading the whole system even while being denied the opportunity to be able to comment further on this one specific instance.
I am so sorry this persecution is having such a negative effect on your mental well-being, I hope you can come to see your exclusion as a badge of honour.
Can Salmond’s legal team take this up with the judge.? At the very least the reasoning behind the decision might come out.
were the defence team to raise Craig’s exclusion, that would suggest that they think this blog may ‘influence’ the jury, which is supposed to make their decision on the arguments and evidence presented in court, not on what they may read outside the courtroom.
So yet another Scottish judge has prostituted their ethics. It seems to me that there is a large propensity for a total lack of graciousness in both the Scottish and English judiciary in these modern times.
What was it George Orwell said?
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Keep at it Craig, the more corrupt the powers that be become, the more satisfying for those who cling to truth their demise will be.
The state has very good reasons why trials such as this are not televised or even released on audio for the public to judge for themselves. CM has attempted to short-circuit these restrictions and they are not happy. The USA has a much more open access for the media to it’s justice system for high profile cases and it is high time that practice was followed here and not just for selected cases in superior courts. I understand the jury have three options, guilty, not guilty and not proven. I assume they must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the prosecutions case in order to convict. I understand there are fifteen members of the jury which should provide a good cross-section of the public. It is up to Alex Salmond’s defence team to cast doubt on the prosecutions case and I think we should allow the case to proceed without undue external reporting which is likely to be biased in any case.
You can sue the police for ‘wrongful arrest’, can you sue the court/judge/judiciary/whoever for wrongful exclusion?
From Day 8 report:
“It was also given in evidence that … there was no civil service policy against women working alone in the evening with Alex Salmond – which claim had been one of the MSM’s most lurid headlines.”
Surely it is the MSM that should be being prosecuted for contempt of court and excluded.
Don’t get mad, get even.
Just think about that Peter. “Can you sue the court/judge/judiciary/whoever for wrongful exclusion?” Even supposing you could (and I very much doubt it) – who would hear the case? A Judge! And in whose favour would that judge find?
The courts in this country are a last vestige of Feudalism – you address a judge as “My Lord” or “My lady”. They exercise absolute power in their courts and can jail anyone in court for ‘contempt’ on a whim. No jury, no immediate recourse to review. They exercise in their domain a form of Royal Prerogative.
Unless and until we have a truly democratic republic with a proper constitution with enshrined civil rights, we remain at the mercy of a corrupt oligarchy.
“Unless and until we have a truly democratic republic with a proper constitution with enshrined civil rights”. I can think of one large country which considers itself a democratic republic with a magnificent constitution full of civil rights. I doubt anyone considers the US as a role model. Another country with a remarkable constitution full of civil rights was the USSR. Without the Will to be a nation ruled by the people, it is simply a matter of time until the most noble of projects decays.
“Without the Will to be a nation ruled by the people, it is simply a matter of time until the most noble of projects decays”.
Agreed – but it’s going to be easier where citizens have codified constitutional rights.
The USA has never been a democratic republic. Its constitution and the Federalist Papers are a blue print for a land-owning, white, oligarchy.
The USSR rapidly became a Stalinist dictatorship.
But without an activist and engaged polis – all polities will degenerate into oligopolies and dictatorships.
It’s disappointing but please don’t worry too much at a personal level. The answer may be very simple. I think the prosecution has not had time to identify what exactly it is that you or your followers in the comments section have written that might be contempt.
Having been a juror once myself we were told not to read up on anything about the case or the person accused or to discuss the trial with anyone.
But of course, other than asking us, ‘please don’t do this’ they couldn’t stop any juror from doing so. Nor could they know if we had read up about the case elsewhere. This was to ensure that jurors remained impartial.
In the days when information was purely in print it would be difficult for any juror to do so, especially, as was the case I was a juror for, the alleged crimes took place in another part of the country.
But nowadays internet searches make it far easier for jurors to do so.
The unfairness to Salmond is however that the press are not reporting the case with any balance. Articles appear which give the prosecution side but not the defence side. By the same token they are also in contempt. But are their reporters being told to stay out of court by the defence? How is the likes of Severin Carroll getting his information?
The only remotely fair way to limit what information jurors take into account is to isolate them completely for the duration of the trial. No newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, or handy little pocket gadgets.
Or allow balanced reporting.
But no one can say exactly what is “balanced”. And we certainly don’t want to make the authorities the judge of that.
Bloody hell Craig.
What a stinking pus ridden state we live in.
The veil of truth and justice is peeled back to reveil the dishonesty and complicity.
Keep yer pecker up, sir.
You have and are doing, a fine job.
No doubt it brings back memories for you.
Onwards and upwards
??
Won’t you be able to continue to interpret the trial on the basis of verbatim reports coming out of the courtroom, as you did during the week of presentation of the prosecution’s case, when no members of the public were allowed in?
Your exclusion – for the (non) reasons stated – is actually more important than the trial itself.
Very true, James. I completely agree. For one trial to have a wrong outcome is bad. But for the entire justice system to be perverted is far, far worse.
And indeed it’s not only the justice system. Citizens’ whole perception of the world is being deliberately and systematically distorted.
FROM GRAHAM ENNIS.
I HAVE BEEN TAKING LEGAL ADVICE.
This is illegal on so many grounds. It most importantly violates EU law.
It also violates Scottish law.
It violates the international convention on human rights.
etc etc. My legal advisor is compiling a very long list. This issue, in itself, may nullify the verdict.
There is, in law, something called evidence. Where is this evidence! It is hearsay evidence. You cannot violate free speech on hearsay evidence. much else.
A campaign is going to be started, via Facebook, if they take any steps to detain Craig. I am outwith scottish law and can say as I damn well please. I shall also publish, outside Scotland.
The Eldritch dishonourable Judge has shamed the Scottish judiciary. I shall overcome my almost overwhelming urge to dispatch, to the honourable/mad/deranged judge by DHL a parcel containing a well cured haggis, a kilt, instructions as to use by the judiciary, and a free donation of said kilt to the Judge to use as she sees fit. Saor Alba, Graham Ennis.
As I posted before
It is not the Law that matters it is the Force of the Law. That is what they can enforce.
Or what we will tolerate being enforced on us.
I am surprised Craig who is over 70 has not been arrested for not self isolating.
In Paris and elsewhere you can be arrested unless you have obtained paperwork giving you permission to be out. I wonder if this is coming here soon.
Of course there are much worse injustices. The injustice of you country being invaded or having bombs dropped on you. The injustice of extreme poverty. The Injustice of being wrongly imprisoned. The injustice of having you children wrongly taken away on hearsay evidence in a family court.
We are living in strange times with emergency powers the same as if at war.
But life for us will probably remain a lot better than for many in Yemen , Libya , Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan or many third world countries.
Even in times like these, and faced with events such as these, we ought to remember David Hume’s cogent statement that all government is by the consent of the ruled. (Jefferson strongly agreed). Note especially Hume’s counterintuitive claim that “Force is always on the side of the governed”. When you really think it through, he was right.
“Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular”.
– David Hume, “Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary. Essay 4 : Of The First Principles of Government”
Brian @10:00
With respect. Mr Murray will be 62 this year.
What makes you think Craig is over 70?
Craig, get out for an hour or so, even half-an-hour, into this rare sunshine we’re getting this morning, get your biological clock synced with that natural rhythm.
Your good health, your strength matters most, I think Alex Salmond is irrepressible, as are you, he and Julian to name but two, need all our support and through your heroic efforts in awakening so many people, you have done much for them and for the greater good, more than you can appreciate, you’ve inspired millions by your example.
The heavy weight of shame is upon all those who’ve participated in these persecutions and sham/show trials. The media too who grossly mis-report this and much more, have done so from the beginning, they’re in the dark place and have darkness inside them too, they rot from the inside. Words fail me this morning. When this is over get out of the city, cities, into the country, recharge.
They don’t like the truth. Not that they care because who is going to do anything about it. I have gathered that the Law Society runs Scotland and keeps everyone in check. A foul and decayed existence with the most devious and corrupt people.
Iis always about the money. Fake virus = massive spending. If you cant get a war going then do something else. Fear works every time. Here come more liberty stealing legislation which people will accept without question. Fake virus = hide the recession/depression, blame virus, load up on massive spending to counter fake virus, bundle cold victims in with the fake virus stats, take civil liberties away. Your civil liberties are not for,sale to anyone and you must fight. It is not for another human to take anything away from you, other than by violence and there are ways to deal with violent people. If i see state violence against the people there will be a reaction.
People keep voting thinking it makes a difference, They still don;t get it. Your overlords carry on doing as they please and murdering anyone who stands in their way. The SNP have sold the Scot’s out to the English and international finance.
Just so.
They will have a hard time walking this tale back.
Craig, it is necessary to follow the protocol even if only to demonstrate that the protocol is broken, even if it still comes as an unpleasant shock. Sometimes pulling back the curtain reveals absence. You have clearly demonstrated in not one but two highly significant matters, that in “Great” Britain today, justice will not be seen. We no longer need assume it will be done. In both matters, the state and the administration of justice has brought itself into disrepute. Meanwhile, people are dying en masse while our government fiddles. If we have a system of justice no better than China’s, it would be fair to have a system of healthcare no worse than theirs.
“If we have a system of justice no better than China’s, it would be fair to have a system of healthcare no worse than theirs”.
Both depend on whose interests the government is devoted to. In China, I think there is now strong evidence that the government is genuinely committed to the health and welfare of all the people.
In the UK, not so much.
Exactly. Without a will for justice, fairness and equality there is only window dressing.
An interesting historical comparison: During Mao’s Long March, there was a Canadian doctor, Norman Bethune, who provided a field hospital for Mao’s soldiers and local people throughout. Still revered in China, he was belatedly recognised in Canada in the ’70s. A Socialist, he once said “Medicine, as we are practising it, is a luxury trade. We are selling bread at the price of jewels. … Let us take the profit, the private economic profit, out of medicine, and purify our profession of rapacious individualism … Let us say to the people not ‘How much have you got?’ but ‘How best can we serve you?”
What is the likelihood that the West would today applaud Bethune’s dedication to free public medicine regardless of the context? If Bethune practiced in Syria or Iraq he would be denounced as a terrorist sympathiser. That, in 40 years, is what we’ve lost. UK political show trials are just icing on that poisonous cake.
“In China, I think there is now strong evidence that the government is genuinely committed to the health and welfare of all the people.”
All the non-muslim people?
Craig, the establishment will not forget: but neither will we.
In the two days you directly reported the court proceedings, you have shed more light on this whole affair and shown the main stream media for what they are.The truth is like the genie that has been let out of the bottle.It will never go back in again. You have done your job..
You are a giant among.men.
‘Bonne courage mon brave’. You have my deepest respect.
Craig, you have to go back to the Court, and tell the police there is no written order, of exclusion. Police are not court officers. The service on you is illegal. So you are free to enter. I have this on legal advice. If you very gently try to push through the crowd into the court, it is assault. If they arrest you, it is illegal. got that?….demand a written order of the police first. If they do not have one, and demand you wait, it is illegal.
you are in the right.
Graham
Could Mr Murray go to the court accompanied by a suitably qualified lawyer? When the police seek to remove Mr Murray, the lawyer could ask them the relevant questions and make the relevant statements. Ideally, everything would be recorded by at least two independent witnesses.
Aren’t the police or court operatives just operating as uniformed night club bouncers? If you’re not on the list or wearing the wrong trousers then you’re not coming in. Perhaps the best option now is to get favourable media outlets such as RT involved.
I am not adjacent to law in Scotland, which is in a different jurisdiction from where I court report. In England and Wales, no person in the public gallery is allowed to take notes of proceedings, or use an electronic device, without permission of the court – and such a request, in my experience, is always refused. Such note-taking, or typing, would be a contempt, in the face of the court, but would, normally, be preceded by a request/warning from the judge to desist, on pain of removal.
Contemporaneous reporting is also, generally, limited to what is said within the proceedings, by the judge, counsel, witnesses, or, for example, by way of notes from the jury, absent of colour or commentary.
Trust this assists.
Very helpful, Mr Wilby; thanks!
As a matter of interest, what would be the position of a member of the public (or a journalist) who had an eidetic memory and was able to remember, the day after, everything that was said and done in court?
From a practical point of view he would be just as well off as someone with recording equipment. Indeed, he would have such equipment – just biological and built-in rather than electronic.
If such a person were forbidden to publish what he remembered, how would the authorities decide exactly how much an “average” person should be able to remember?
People do have the right to take notes in England and Wales (see https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/legal-judgment-upholds-the-right-of-journalists-and-others-to-take-notes-in-court/ ) and I would be very surprised if the principle of open justice is not present in Scotland.
I was correct it is explicitly permitted: http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/14/0/Court-Room-Etiquette
This rule casts doubt on the reliability of all court reporting if it is based on memory, which could only be selective. The accurate recording of experience through observation, listening and use of other senses is a highly developed skill, which even for research purposes has many pitfalls. I have certainly valued Craig’s reporting for conveying the sense of process that is often missing in newspaper reports. Perhaps it has been too real for the prosecution to feel comfortable about. I certainly have not thought of them as having influential value one way or another.
“Even if my accounts reached only a few thousand people, a world where a few thousand people know the truth is better than a world of absolute darkness, by a factor of infinity.”
The darkness will never be absolute as long as good people shine their light. We just need more good people to shine the beacons of truth.
We just need a few thousands of people to contact and communicate to another few thousands of people and so on for truth to become the beacon.
It seems quite plain that contempt of court will be tolerated by this judge (in fact tacitly encouraged) if it helps persuade the jury to deliver a guilty verdict.
In the passage from Hume that I quoted earlier, this is the core perception:
“…as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded…”
That last part – “it is… on opinion only that government is founded” fully explains the repressive behaviour of governments faced by citizens who wish to publish the truth. Government prefers to dictate exactly what opinions the public shall have, and therefore seeks to crush anyone who strays beyond that narrow range of opinions.
Noam Chomsky put it very neatly and lucidly:
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate”.
Craig– I know what you mean by dark night of the soul, I felt something like that when I heard you’d been excluded, and when I think of what it means for Alex Salmond, or when I think of Julian Assange, or of any of the terrible abuses of power around the world. Please let all the appreciation for yourself in. I am so respectful of your courage and appreciative of your reporting and your dedication to truth. I can’t think of anyone ever who took on an established abusive power and had an easy time. Have to stay positive or they win…
I am deeply appreciative of who you are and what you do. Thank you!