Category Archives: Transhuman News

Chen Qiushi was born in Chinas remote, frigid north near the countrys border with Russia. An only child, he loved to tell stories and jokes to his family and classmates and dreamed of being an actor or a television journalist. But his mother objected, and Chen got a law degree from a local university and moved to Beijing, where he later took a job at a prestigious legal firm.

In off-hours, Chen continued to pursue his passion for performing. He dabbled in standup comedy at local bars and did voice acting. He became a contestant on I Am a Speaker, a talent show for orators modelled on The Voice. In his final performance, he expounded on the importance of free speech. A country can only grow stronger when it is accompanied by critics, Chen said. Only freedom of expression and the freedom of press can protect a country from descending into a place where the weak are preyed upon by the strong.

Chen won second place and used his newfound fame to build a large social-media following. In 2018, he uploaded more than four hundred short videos that provided basic tutorials on Chinese law on Douyin, a platform similar to TikTok, but only available for users in China. He gained more than 1.5 million followers, making him the most popular legal personality on the entire platform.

In the next year, Chen began providing independent journalism to his followers on social-media. In the summer of 2019, he travelled to Hong Kong to report firsthand on the pro-democracy street protests that had erupted in the city. Why am I in Hong Kong? Chen asked, in a video posted on August 17th. Because a lot is happening in Hong Kong right now.

Chen interviewed protesters and spoke with those who supported the police. He waded into simmering controversies, such as the use of violence by some demonstrators. He acknowledged that journalism was a hobby of sorts, but said that he still had an obligation to be present when and where news unfolded. He also pledged to be objective. I wont express my opinion carelessly, Chen promised. I wont say whom I support or whom I disagree with. Everyone has their own subjective prejudice. I wish to leave behind my own prejudice and treat everything with neutrality as much as I can . . . because I am not satisfied with public opinion and the media environment in China, I decided to come to Hong Kong and become the media myself.

Alarmed by the reach of Chens social-media posts, Chinese officials pressured Chens law firm to get him to leave Hong Kong. The firm told Chen that, if he did not return to Beijing immediately, he would be in grave danger. Four days after he posted his first video from Hong Kong, Chen flew home to Beijing. All of his public Chinese social-media accounts, including Weibo, WeChat, and Douyin, no longer worked. When he tried to open a new Douyin account a few weeks later, the account was deleted as soon as his face appeared in a video. He posted messages on his YouTube and Twitter, which are banned in China. After Chinese police interrogated Chen and demanded to know what he thought of the Hong Kong protests, he expressed frustration. No one cares about the truthall they care about is my stance, Chen complained in a YouTube video. This is the problem we face right now. It seems that truth does not matter at all.

[Support The New Yorkers award-winning journalism. Subscribe today ]

Six months later, on January 23, 2020, the city of Wuhan went into lockdown. The next day, Chen boarded the last train from Beijing to Wuhan. When disaster happens, if you dont rush to the front lines as soon as possible, what kind of journalist are you? he asked in a video he posted outside the train station. Chen seemed to believe that informing the public and insuring access to independent reporting was the key to fighting the disease. As long as information travels faster than the virus, we can win this battle, Chen said, in the video. Although I was blocked on the Internet in China for reporting on the events in Hong Kong, I still have a Twitter and a YouTube account. In the next few days, I invite you to find me through these channels. Id be happy to help get the voice of the people of Wuhan to the outside world. Chen apparently believed he could use his skills as an orator and his charisma as a performer to build an audience online, even if it was primarily on YouTube and Twitter and not the Chinese social-media platforms from which he was banned.

Over the next ten days in Wuhan, Chen visited emergency rooms and supermarkets, talked to doctors, nurses, and city residents, and uploaded daily video reports. On January 25th, the beginning of the Chinese New Year, Chen donned improvised personal protective gear, including swimming goggles, and filmed a busy scene outside a local emergency room. The next day, he visited the shuttered Wuhan wet market, where a seafood seller, Wei Guixian, was reportedly the first person to have fallen ill from the virus. Chen described the market as a colorful place that sold foxes, monkeys, and pangolins, and said local rich people do have a habit of eating wild animals to boost their health.

As Chen reported from the city, Chinese officials systematically covered up the outbreak. The National Health Commission ordered institutions not to publish any information related to the unknown disease. Chen feared that such censorship was facilitating the spread of the virus and believed that his daily video reports informed the public. He facilitated donations of supplies and distributed food to hospital workers. He shared with viewers an encouraging note from his parents, who urged him to keep reporting but also to stay safe. He also implicitly criticized the countrys leadership after President Xi Jinping initially did not travel to Wuhan. I dont care where Xi Jinping is, Chen noted, addressing the citys residents. But I, Chen Qiushi, am here.

On March 10, 2020, nearly three months after the presumed first case, the President finally visited Wuhan. He praised the peoples war against the coronavirus, and brought along journalists from state-controlled media outlets. Through its global propaganda network, China told its pandemic narrative to the world. It used crude measuresa video, distributed by the state-run news agency Xinhua, featuring the Statue of Liberty failing to defend the U.S. from the virusand more sophisticated strategies, such as generating media coverage of the Chinese government delivering aid in places such as Pakistan and Italy.

Part of the governments argument is that its system of strict information control has allowed it to suppress misinformation and rumors, while providing the population with reliable health information and protocols to stay safe. A global survey released in June 2020 found that sixty per cent of respondents believed that China had responded effectively to the pandemic, while only a third felt that the U.S. had done so. The Chinese government used its near-total control over domestic news mediaas well as social mediato manage public perceptions of its coronavirus policies and to build popular support for its actions. It blocked or took down online posts that cast doubt on the governments response and, in some cases, arrested and prosecuted dissenters. Taking advantage of deteriorating relations with the Trump Administration, it expelled more than a dozen U.S. foreign correspondents, some of whom were asking uncomfortable questions about Wuhan.

China provided a playbook for information repression that spread around the world alongside the virus. Citing COVID, authoritarian governments in Russia, Iran, Nicaragua, and eighty other nations, according to Human Rights Watch, enacted new restrictions on free speech and political expression that were falsely described as public-health measures. In at least ten countries, protests against the government were also banned or interrupted. Information on the virus that did not come from the government was criminalized as fake news or propaganda.

Authoritarian regimes called the censorship necessary and much of it temporary, but, in reality, the pandemic amplified or accelerated a shift toward authoritarianism that, according to the U.S.-based pro-democracy organization Freedom House, had been under way for fourteen years. At least ninety-one countries that the group monitored restricted news media in response to the virus outbreak in the first months of 2020, including sixty-seven per cent of the states that the nonprofit classifies as not free.

These crackdowns were often fuelled by domestic political considerations, Freedom House found, including a desire to hide the extent of the outbreak from citizens and conceal government incompetence. The repression was facilitated by the narrative, created and spread by China, that authoritarian governments were better equipped to respond to the pandemic, in part, because of their ability to control and manage information. This was in sharp contrast, China argued, to the deficiencies in the democratic world, particularly in the United States, which was mired in division and misinformation and struggled to muster an effective public-health response. Today, as the most recent wave of the pandemic recedes, a post-COVID global political order is emerging where autocracies appear strengthened and democracies seem divided.

During his time in Wuhan, Chen visited the construction site of Huoshenshan Hospital, an enormous emergency medical facility that the Chinese government built, from scratch, in ten days. The hospital was both a response to the overwhelming demand for patient care, and a carefully calibrated propaganda effort intended to highlight the ability of the Chinese government to mobilize state resources and reorganize society in an emergency. During a car ride back with several Wuhan residents, Chen observed empty streets as he searched for a place to eat.

As his time in Wuhan wore on, Chen became increasingly agitated. He uploaded a twenty-seven-minute monologue in which he decried shortages of testing kits and hospital beds, described the exhaustion of doctors and construction workers, and reported that taxi-drivers in the city had figured out that a contagious disease was spreading weeks before the authorities made a public announcement. Despite the governments attempt to control the flow of information, they knew to avoid the Huanan market. Chen described the growing mayhem at hospitals, the lines, the patients being treated in parking lots and waiting rooms, and the body of a dead patient sitting in a wheelchair.

Several days after Chens arrival, someone from the Bureau of Justice called Chen and asked where he was staying in Wuhan. Authorities summoned Chens parents and asked them to pressure Chen to leave Wuhan. I want him to return home more than you do, Chen said his mother retorted. A week later, Chen told his parents he was planning to visit a temporary hospital. After being unable to reach Chen for twelve hours, his friends, following an agreed-upon protocol, logged into his accounts and changed his passwords. Though there has been no official confirmation, they suspected that he had been detained by Chinese authorities and was being secretly imprisoned.

Original post:
How Chinas Response to COVID-19 Set the Stage for a Worldwide Wave of Censorship - The New Yorker

A year into facing firein India for controversial content,Netflix Inc's (NASDAQ: NFLX) has partnered with the country'scentral government to launch a short video series.

The series 'Azadi Ki Amrit Kahaniya,' is created by the Indian governmentincollaboration with Netflix to commemorate the 75 years of Indian Independence under a state initiative.

Bela Bajaria, Head of Global TV, Netflix, said the company is "proud to partner" with the governmentto "celebrate and acknowledge the evolution of India over the past 75 years by celebrating its beautiful art, culture, and storytelling."

See Also: Netflix May Soon Clamp Down On Password Sharing: Here's How It Is Going To Work

She further added that it was "in pursuance of this partnership Netflix has created a series of short videos based on real-life stories aimed to celebrate the achievement of people from all corners of India."

The first set of videos features seven women changemakers from across the country who will share their experiences.

Union Minister of Information and Broadcasting of India Anurag Thakursaid"this initiative aims to bring out inspiring stories of Indians, and these stories shall motivate and empower more people to achieve their goals."

This isn't the first time that Netflix is partnering with the Indian government. Earlier, the ott platform, with other Indian peers, partnered with the government for the state-owned 52nd International Film Festival of India.

This came after India last year announced a new set of rules and guidelines under the existing laws to regulate digital content by the OTT platforms amid the row of controversial content leading to legal heat against the platforms.

Read Next:'Nice Growth' In APAC: Netflix CEO Highlights Rising Subscription Numbers In Key Region

2022 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Excerpt from:
Netflix In India: From Censorship To Partnership With The Government - Benzinga - Benzinga

In mid-April, Florida rejected fifty-four math books for classroom use, claiming they made reference to critical race theory and other prohibited topics.

What is novel for people to understand is that this is being organized and perpetrated at a level weve not seen before.

It seems that some publishers attempted to slap a coat of paint on an old house built on the foundation of Common Core and indoctrinating concepts like race essentialism, especially, bizarrely, for elementary school students, asserted Floridas Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. The rejected textbooks were not named and no examples of how they managed to run afoul of state educational standards were given.

The episode, which brought national ridicule to DeSantis and Floridas increasingly right-wing politics, is just one of a rapidly growing number of censorship actions being taken by local and state officials across the country.

PEN America, a nonprofit that works to defend freedom of expression, reported that during a recent nine-month period there were 1,586 instances of books being banned, involving 1,145 unique titles. According to the report, these bannings took place in eighty-six school districts in twenty-six states, representing 2,899 schools with a combined enrollment of more than two million students.

What is novel for people to understand is that this is being organized and perpetrated at a level weve not seen before, Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression and education at PEN America, tells The Progressive. Its part of a movement adjacent to politics but very much part of an effort to gin-up outrage over books in schools in an election year.

Whether the books deal with race, sex, or gender, Friedman notes, the same lines or images are being used to remove those books, and [they] are being targeted across state lines.

Right-wing censorship efforts are focusing on classic works such as Harper Lees To Kill A Mockingbird, John Steinbecks Of Mice and Men, and Art Spieglmans Maus, and Ruby BridgessRuby Bridges Goes to School. Many others deal with LGBTQ+ and gender identity issues, including Maia Kobabes Gender Queer, and Justin Richardsons And Tango Makes Three. The New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning 1619 Project has also come under widespread critical attack because of its alleged reliance on critical race theory, as have books by anti-racism writers and activists Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi. Even Toni Morrissons classic book Beloved has been pulled from the shelves.

Most distressing, according to PEN America , is that it is not just the number of books removed that is disturbing, but the processesor lack thereofthrough which such removals are being carried out. Two-fifths of the bans are tied to orders from state officials or elected lawmakers to investigate or remove books in schools, while nearly all (98 percent) of the 1,586 instances of banned books identified by PEN America involved departures of best practice guidelines designed toprotect students First Amendment rights.

Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who now teaches at New York Law School, tells The Progressive that many of these actions likely violate the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that governs expression in schools and libraries.

Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas, the court ruled in that case, Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico. Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those booksand seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.

Texas, with 712 instances of book censorship, is the number-one state in which these bans have occurred, followed by Pennsylvania and Florida with 456 and 204, respectively.

Last December, Representative Matt Krause, Republican of Texas, sent every school district in the state a list of 850 books he believes should be removed from libraries for allegedly containing material that might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex.

Strossen sees this as evidence of a coordinated campaign: They are armed with a playbook and say, heres what you can do to challenge decisions that are being made about the curriculum, about library books, she says. And they get people, usually a relatively small number or percentage of the community, who are disproportionately active.

Strossen notes that Jerry Falwells Moral Majority was one of the groups that played this role in the 1980s. Todays book censorship campaign is being promoted by groups including Moms for Liberty, No Left Turn in Education, and Parents Defending Education.

Censorship battles have long been a feature of U.S. political life.

In the late nineteenth century, Anthony Comstocks anti-obscenity campaign culminated with the U.S. Congress adopting the 1873 Comstock Act, the federal laws that banned illicit materials distributed through the mail. In the 1910s, near the end of his life, Comstock claimed that he had destroyed 3,984,063 photographs and 160 tons of obscene literature. These laws would remain in force until the 1950s.

The 1920s were marked not only by the Palmer Raids and the deportation of anarchists, but also by the banning in New York of James Joyces Ulysses, and D.H. Lawrences Lady Chatterleys Lover, and of Sinclair Lewiss Elmer Gantry in Boston, among other titles. It also saw Catholic leaders promote state censorship bills in an effort to clean up Hollywood movies.

In the post-World War II era, the United States has faced two perceived enemies: communism and obscenity. The U.S. Congress, both the Senate and House, led the nations battle against sin, sex, and subversion. Federal efforts against alleged immorality involved pocket-book pulp fiction as well as comic books, Bettie Page photos, and depictions of homosexuality. It was an era that saw schools host comic book burnings.

In 1979, Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority, which joined the American Family Association and Morality in Media (a.k.a. the National Center on Sexual Exploitation) in a campaign against obscenity in books and other media. Among the books banned during the 1980s were F. Scott FitzgeraldsThe Great Gatsby, Alice WalkersThe Color Purple, and John Steinbecks Of Mice and Men. In addition, the FBI initiated a program of library surveillance to check on the identities of people examining potentially controversial materials.

There were also campaigns to block exhibitions of artistic works by Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano (i.e. his work Piss Christ) as well as the theatrical screening of Martin Scorseses The Last Temptation of Christ.

Todays censorship wars are part of the larger culture wars driven by white evangelical Christians. Members of this group, in large part members of the Republican activist base, are waging an apparently coordinated campaign against reproductive choice, LGBTQ+ rights, and the teaching of what is falsely labeled critical race theory.

Whats key right now is engagement, PEN Americas Friedman says, when asked what people can do to resist this censorship wave. It comes down to affirming a simple message: We dont believe in banning books. We believe in freedom of speech. We believe in freedom of access to information. How this is regulated in schools needs to reflect those principles.

This is a very simple, non-partisan message, he adds. Its not a message about left or right or LBGTQ+ or race, but rather a fundamental belief that we shouldnt be banning books in this country.

See the rest here:
The New Censorship Wars - Progressive.org - Progressive.org

Texas A&M University is home to more than 70,000 students and 500,000 alumni many of whom hope to maintain the myriad traditions central to the institutions identity.

But rapid growth in A&Ms population means that change is occurring at the traditionally conservative university in College Station. Some students and faculty say several recent administrative decisions were unilateral and regressive, however, highlighting A&Ms struggle to weigh the desires of mounting liberal voices against those of a still-larger group of conservative students and alumni.

Heres what you should know about the latest conflict at A&M.

The school had more than 73,000 students in fall 2021, compared to under 50,000 students in 2010.

The alumni population is similarly large. More than 550,000 people have attended Texas A&M University, and more than 505,000 of them are still alive. Thats because more people graduated from the school in the past 20 years than in the first 120 years of the institution combined, according to the Association of Former Students.

On HoustonChronicle.com: Texas A&Mclimate lab, other agreements ended in wake of questions over China ties

Students and faculty say they have noticed a trend over the past year, especially since President M. Katherine Banks took the helm in summer 2021. The former engineering dean has ushered in several new changes, and not all of them were made with student and faculty input, those stakeholders say.

Some of the overarching changes involve Banks attempts to reorganize the universitys academic structure. A&M last year commissioned a study to address organizational efficiency, and in response to the findings, Banks identified several areas that will see transformation. She called her response, "The Path Forward."

One of the biggest recommendations that the university accepted is the merging of the College of Liberal Arts, College of Science and the College of Geosciences into a new College of Arts and Science. Another is the reorganization of the provosts office despite faculty concerns that changes might impact their freedom to teach on topics they choose. And University Libraries will no longer serve as a tenure home for faculty.

The university is also working to align the management practices of student organizations, although it received markedly split feedback on the suggestion.

"We are pleased to hear from different voices, even though sometimes we all dont agree on the outcome of a decision," Kelly Brown, vice president of marketing and communications, said in a statement. "Texas A&M has 72,000-plus students, more than 1,200 student organizations and countless competing priorities."

"Earlier this year, President Banks commissioned 41 working groups to review and make recommendations related to the Path Forward," the statement continues. "She asked for the direct input of students, faculty, staff and former students. She is seeking other opinions and is most definitely listening. Hard decisions are being made based on whats best for the university and those decisions are arrived at through research, careful thought and input from all stakeholders. Not all decisions will be favorable to everyone, however, the administration is committed to continue working together and listening to all campus voices."

In the fall, the university moved the three-day summer camp for incoming freshmen under a new umbrella. Formerly an independently run student organization, it is now a student organization that supports a university program meaning student leaders report to the university. The selection of leaders and counselors also has to be approved by the vice president of student affairs.

A&M further changed the camps mission statement to remove a phrase about creating an accepting environment, head director Mikayla Slaydon said. The university then aligned Fish Camps official values with the A&Ms official values, resulting in the loss of a camp value stressing diversity.

Slaydon said she found out about these decisions after the fact.

The university disaffiliated from "Draggieland" in the fall without providing an explanation, students said.

Students formerly managed the drag show throughMSC Town Hall, a student organization supporting a university program that brings events to campus. That group held the money in a university coffer, so A&M's disaffiliation meant the show couldn't access its funding.

Several LGBT groups fundraised themselves and held the pageant to a sold-out crowd. They suspect conservative lobbying groups influenced the administration. Several organizations heavily protested the event in 2020 and 2021, even though it was still a rousing success those years.

Another controversial decision came when the university in February gave editors of the student newspaper The Battalion an ultimatum to stop printing immediately. If they didnt move to an online-only format, they would lose several resources including their building space and faculty adviser, the newspapers editor-in-chief previously told the Chronicle.

Several students said they feel that The Battalion has covered more contentious issues on campus this year, such as sexual assault at Fish Camp. The Battalion is a registered student organization, which means it doesnt report to university administration. The threat led students and faculty to immediately raise concerns about censorship.

After news of the decision went viral, administration walked back the ultimatum and formed a working group to determine the future of the publication. Vice President of Student Affairs Gen. Joe Ramirez also issued a formal apology about several decisions madeon campus without student input.

Here is the original post:
What to know about Texas A&M's censorship battles, including Draggieland show and The Battalion - Houston Chronicle

White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain offered an interesting insight into Democrats 2022 midterm election strategy on Sunday, musing about French President Emmanuel Macrons ability to win reelection despite a 36 percent approval rating, implying a similar possibility for U.S. President Joe Biden. Instead of trying to turn Bidens sinking approval ratings around by ditching failed policies, Democrats seem content with their underwater numbers so long as they can drive Republicans popularity even lower with smears and censorship.

Bidens approval rating is at 40.9 percent, according to the RealClear aggregate, although a Quinnipiac poll has him as low as 35 percent and a CNBC poll has him at 38 percent. A February NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll reported that 56 percent of Americans thought Bidens first year in office was a failure, and the month before a mere 25 percent were satisfied with his administration.

The Biden administration has helped drive its own approval ratings into the ground with crisis after self-induced crisis. Democrat-led Covid lockdowns and ballooning federal spending have caused the worst inflationary crisis in decades, coupled with energy prices that were on the rise even before Russias invasion of Ukraine thanks to Bidens war on oil and gas. Destabilization in Ukraine and a botched withdrawal from Afghanistan may top the list of Bidens most deadly mess-ups, but theyre far from the only line items.

From a first-day executive order requiringthat schools ignore the biological differences between male and female students from the athletic field to the bathroom if they wish to continue receiving federal funding, and keeping those same schools closed for months, to bragging about working with Big Tech to silence dissent, exacerbating a record-setting crisis at the U.S. Southern border, ousting people from their jobs with medical mandates, encouraging kids to chop off their genitals, and colluding with the National School Boards Association to smear parents as domestic terrorists, the Biden team has done everything possible to alienate voters.

Meanwhile, Bidens radical legislative agenda has crashed and burned, leaving him with nothing to offer voters but a list of failures. Biden could choose to learn from these mistakes and respond by securing the border, unhampering American oil production, respecting parents and free speech, and protecting minors from predatory sex propaganda. But instead, the White House is tacitly admitting it doesnt care that Americans dont like its agenda.

How is that a workable election strategy? It isnt, unless you can convince voters to hate or fear your opposition even more. Democrats spent all four years of former President Donald Trumps presidency pushing the Clinton campaign-funded Russia collusion hoax, aided by propagandists in the legacy media. When The New York Post broke news of sensational and incriminating Biden family scandals in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, Big Tech and big media collaborated to nuke the story and censor those who tried to share it.

Those are just two of the most explosive examples. There are countless more of tech companies censoring conservative perspectives (including a sitting president), journalists running cover for Democrat conspiracy theories while lying about Republicans, and even tech barons like Mark Zuckerberg funneling nearly half a billion dollars to take over local election offices.

In a fair system, a president with approval ratings that are underwater by double digits would be worried about his next election, and probably worried enough to be making some big changes. But Biden has done nothing but double down. That signals just how confident his people are in their ability to collude with the censorship regime to smear their opponents or keep their arguments from reaching voters entirely. Censorship is a powerful political tool, and its part of why the laptop class is so panicked at the idea that someone with slightly more respect for free speech than they now owns the Twittersphere.

All of Bidens disasters point to a Republican victory in the midterms this fall, but Democrats unwillingness to let nosedives in the polls budge their cultural battles should be a chilling reminder to Republicans that Democrats havent played by the rules for years. The collaborators in the Biden White House, in the legacy media, and in Big Tech are so confident in their backroom rigging that they dont think they need to listen to what American voters think.

This should put urgency and tangible political reforms behind the broad and bipartisan desire among Americans to ensure American election processes are beyond reproach.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

View original post here:
Dems Have Zilch To Offer So They're Smearing, Censoring The Opposition - The Federalist

The pay dispute at Arriva London South is being followed closely by bus drivers across London from the standpoint of launching a long overdue fightback.

Opposition has continued to grow against Unites attempts to foist a below-inflation pay cut on Arriva south drivers. After last months strikes, Unite re-entered pay negotiations only to recycle a below inflation 3 percent offer which drivers had already rejected, with the proviso it is backdated and with the addition of an insulting 750 lump sum.

Unites actions refute the claims by a group of so-called union activists, defenders of Unite and promoters of its General Secretary Sharon Graham, that the union has been reformed under her leadership and will fight the corner of bus workers against the companies.

The activists responded to the growing exposure of Unite by attacking the London Bus Rank-and-File Committee, opposing its fight to organise bus and transport workers independently of the pro-company unions. The activists called for censorship against the World Socialist Web Site demanding drivers stop posting its articles on social media.

Their smear campaign followed publication of an April 13 article,Activists promote Unite General Secretary Sharon Graham in Arriva London South pay dispute.

Unable to answer WSWS politically, the activists responded with a pile-on slandering WSWS as liars and saboteurs, seeking to create maximum confusion over Unites 2021/2 pay claim and legitimise its below inflation deal. They resorted to anti-socialist red-baiting.

This was answered in the articleArriva London South pay dispute: Fact versus fiction which, along withUnite blocks joint action by bus drivers against pay restraint, attracted widespread readership and support among bus drivers on social media.

In their comments on social media, drivers condemned Unite. They described the union as being in the pocket of Arriva, called for a no-confidence vote in the union, and insisted on a pay demand of no less than 9 percent and up to 15 percent.

As we wrote, It is critical that drivers speak out and oppose the unprincipled efforts to silence the WSWS. Political censorship sets a dangerous precedent. It is a direct attack on drivers right to know information being suppressed by the mainstream media, the bus companies and Unite the union. It is aimed at blocking a politically conscious fightback by the working class.

Bus drivers have responded to this appeal by explaining their reasons for following and sharing the articles from the WSWS and the importance of the fight taken up by the London Bus Rank-and-File Committee.

An Abellio driver said, We are all following the strike at Arriva and were surprised to see that Brixton drivers had to work during the strike. Now we know that they could and should have joined the strike. That the legal case against them was a fraud is another example of the way the union separate us. I spoke to drivers on the 137 from Brixton and they all supported the strike and wanted to join it.

Our wages and conditions are very bad, the driver continued, explaining that they had changed the union in their garage and hoped they would see a change. Describing how drivers were leaving for another London company with better pay, they asked, Why cant we have London-wide pay negotiations?

A petition was being circulated here and in Camberwell garage to get rid of [Unite Regional Officer John] Murphy and the other full-timers but not Graham as its said she is different, but we have not seen any change at all. They are all the same. Why is it that its the same union that does the negotiations, but we end up with completely different wages and conditions?

Speaking on the censorship of the WSWS the driver said, So the attack on you is because you let drivers know what is happening in the different companies which the union keeps quiet about. I pass the WSWS articles on to our WhatsApp group so bus drivers can read the WSWS articles at the garage. So it gets around and the union knows this. That is what they are reacting to; their behind-closed-doors deals are being exposed. Its important that you keep this up.

A former RATP Dev driver victimised over COVID-related health and safety concerns told us, The truth will always hurt. The word unite means just that, but in Unite The Union it means to divide and conquer.

When RATP Dev bus drivers voted to go on strike over a year ago many of these RATP garages then became, overnight, with the blessing of Unite, different subsidiaries. WSWS exposed this and many dirty tactics of the companies, with the union having their hand in it too.

For example, Stamford Brook garage was prevented from going on strike with Park Royal and Shepherds Bush but all are RATP Dev-London United garages. Unite and RATP said Stamford Brook did not have a majority to go out on strike. Utter rubbish when it is Unite members who voted overall in favour of strike action across the garages.

An Arriva driver said, I have no trust in Unite based on experience, they have been useless. They should not be pushing 3 percent at Arriva which drivers have taken strike action against. The cost of everything is going sky high.

During the pandemic we were described as key workers but our safety was not taken seriously by the company or union. We made sure the NHS workers got to work and all those who were essential as well. During last summer we worked in 43-degree temperatures as there was no air conditioning in the cabs. The management were not bothered as they were in their air-conditioned offices.

Speaking to David OSullivan and the London Bus Rank-and-File Committee I became more aware about the dangers with COVID in the workplace and all the measures that could be taken to prevent infections and drivers losing their lives but which were not being taken. It was shameful how he was treated for trying to change things.

We have to raise our voices now and act together and unite regardless of which company we work for. It is not believable when they claim they do not have the money.

We do have the power to change things. If London Underground can be shut down why cant this happen on the buses. They will not listen to us otherwise.

I did not know about the struggle of bus workers in Maharashtra [India] until Dave made the appeal and I read about it on the World Socialist Web Site. Such an important fight over the most basic rights. We do need to look across national borders and see we are part of a wider struggle.

A Metroline driver explained, I think those who are defending Unite are worried about the facts you have exposed because of the outcomes and reaction of bus drivers.

The union is worried about the knock-on effect of the Arriva strike because they want to minimise all the pay disputes across London. We got around 2.5 percent for a two-year deal last time. The union rep at the garage is saying they are pushing for 10 percent in our pay talks this year but they have never discussed this with the drivers, it is a made up figure. They are keeping drivers in the dark about the other pay disputes like at London United.

Unite has failed to deliver on a long list of issueshealth and safety over COVID, pay, and terms and conditions. We voted to strike against Remote Sign On and this was not honoured, they do not respect our views.

The election of Sharon Graham has changed none of our circumstances, this does not change with a new name at the top of the union. The rank-and-file committees is a logical alternative to the union/management alliance, which is a poisoned mechanism, its a sick system.

The WSWS publishes the facts about our concerns which the union tries to silence. Unite has been covering up about COVID and then sided with the company when David OSullivan and the London Bus Rank-and-File Committee fought for action to protect drivers lives.

It is laughable to say there is no connection between pay and the broader issues. Everything is about profit, 100 percent, especially with the privatised buses. Workers are the main force in society. Without us there is no profit, but we have to fight for a pay rise just to make ends meet.

This is part of an international fight as the struggle by bus workers in Maharashtra, India shows. Its a different country but the same issues stemming from the system of capitalism which puts profits first. Workers need to be informed and gain knowledge against the propaganda and lies of the media.

Join the campaign to reinstate London bus driver David OSullivan!

OSullivan was sacked for upholding workers health and safety during a pandemic that has killed 60 bus drivers in London alone.

Read this article:
London bus drivers speak out against smears and censorship of WSWS by defenders of Unite - WSWS