- The International Grand Committee on Disinformation (IGCD) consists of “an international array of legislators, policy advisers and other experts” who work together “to forge international alliances that bring shared, effective strategies into the battle against online disinformation.”
- The founders of the IGCD are four members of the British and Canadian Parliaments, including British Member of Parliament (MP) Damian Collins, who is also on the board of the Centers for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The CCDH fabricates reports that are then used to strip people of their freedom of speech rights.
- Logistics for the IGCD are provided by the Reset Initiative (a not-so-subtle reminder that censorship is a requirement for The Great Reset), which is part of The Omidyar Group of philanthropies.
- Omidyar funds Whistleblower Aid, the legal counsel for the fake Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen, who has testified before U.S., French, British and EU lawmakers, calling for more censorship.
- CCDH chairman Simon Clark also has ties to Arabella Advisors, the most powerful dark money lobbying group in the U.S.
If you suspected censorship was being coordinated on a global scale, you’d be right.
The International Grand Committee on Disinformation (IGCD) consists of “an international array of legislators, policy advisers, and other experts” who work together “to forge international alliances that bring shared, effective strategies into the battle against online disinformation.” What could possibly go wrong?
The idea behind the IGCD came from four members of the British and Canadian Parliaments: Damian Collins and Ian Lucas from the U.K., and Bob Zimmer and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith from Canada. The first session of the IGCD took place at the end of November 2018, so they’ve been quietly working in the background for some time already.
Since then, they’ve held meetings in Canada and the U.K. and hosted seminars in the U.S., attended by spiritual leaders, journalists, technology executives, “subject matter experts” and parliamentary leaders from 21 countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore, St. Lucia, Sweden, the UK and the U.S.).
According to the IGCD, the organization functions as a “forum for information sharing, collaboration and harmonization of policies to … achieve common goals among democratic states. Never mind the fact that democracy cannot exist without freedom of speech.”
Logistics for the group are provided by an initiative called “Reset,” which feels like a not-so-subtle reminder that censorship is a requirement for The Great Reset. They know people would never go along with the Great Reset plan if allowed to freely discuss the ramifications.
‘Online Safety Bill’ seeks to shut down counternarratives
The IGCD helps shed light on the technocracy front group known as the Centers for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), seeing how one of the CCDH’s board members, MP Damian Collins, is also one of the founders of the IGCD. Both groups were formed in 2018 and clearly have the same goals and agenda.
One of those goals is to eliminate free speech online, which is what the U.K.’s proposed “Online Safety Bill” would achieve. Not surprisingly, Collins is part of the Online Safety Bill Committee, charged with examining the Bill “line by line to make sure it is fit for purpose.”
In an Aug. 11 blog post, Collins asked for the public’s help to track down counternarratives, taking screenshots of the offending material and emailing it to him.
“Unless harmful content is reported, whether it is terrible images of self-harm, violent or extremist content or anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, it can otherwise be unknowable to regulators and governments,” he said.
It’s impossible to miss the fact that Collins is lumping “anti-vaccine” content in with violent and extremist content that must be censored and, in reality, that’s probably one of the top categories of information this bill seeks to control.
As reported by iNews, “The Prime Minister [Boris Johnson] has repeatedly insisted the powers contained within the legislation would help crack down on … anti-vaccine disinformation.”
Online Safety Bill is ‘catastrophic for free speech’
While some might think it’s a good idea to spoon feed people “correct” information about vaccines, it’s important to realize that while vaccines are the issue of today, tomorrow another topic that is near and dear to your heart could be deemed out of bounds for public discussion.
So, supporting censorship of any kind is a slippery slope that is bound to come back to bite you when you least expect it.
“While the group supports the bill’s aim of ensuring online platforms remove images of child sexual abuse, terrorist material and content which incites racial hatred and violence, it fears other provisions will adversely affect free speech …
“Under the bill, Ofcom [the British Office of Communications] will be given the power to block access to sites and fine companies which do not protect users from harmful content up to £18m, or 10% of annual global turnover, whichever is the greater.
“Campaigners claim this gives tech firms an incentive to ‘over-censor,’ and ‘effectively outsources internet policing from the police, courts and Parliament to Silicon Valley’ …
“Mr. [MP David] Davis described the bill as a ‘censor’s charter.’ He added: ‘Lobby groups will be able to push social networks to take down content they view as not politically correct, even though the content is legal’ …
“Campaigners are also concerned that technology companies may use artificial intelligence to identify harmful content. That, they say, may introduce racial biases and will wrongly censor language, ‘especially when it comes to irony-loving Brits.’”
U.S. Democrats attack free speech
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Health Misinformation Act, introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, (D-Minn.), and Sen. Ben Ray Luján, (D-N.M.), would suspend Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections in instances where social media networks are found to boost “anti-vaccine conspiracies,” and hold them liable for such content. In a July 22 article, TechCrunch reported:
“The bill would specifically alter Section 230’s language to revoke liability protections in the case of ‘health misinformation that is created or developed through the interactive computer service’ if that misinformation is amplified through an algorithm.
“The proposed exception would only kick in during a declared national public health crisis, like the advent of COVID-19, and wouldn’t apply in normal times. The bill would task the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with defining health misinformation.”
As with the British Online Safety Bill, the Health Misinformation Act is an open portal for abuses. Ironically, the Act actually relies on misinformation to make its case. It specifically mentions the CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” report, which falsely claims a dozen individuals, myself included, are responsible for a majority of the “anti-vax misinformation” being shared on social media platforms…..