The censorship industrial complex has gone into overdrive as western governments look for ways to suppress dissenting opinions, and our rulers have now figured out the best approach: sanctions.
Westerners are being sanctioned for expressing the wrong opinions, cutting them off from their own money, preventing them from gaining employment without a potential employer first obtaining a licence, and banning them from flying.
Now you might disagree with some of the individuals highlighted in this article, but this is not a discussion on the rights and wrongs of their views, but rather on the morality of sanctions against legal speech. Remember, governments will always target the low-hanging fruit before coming after the rest of us.
In one recent example, a former Swiss army colonel and intelligence officer called Jacques Baud was sanctioned by the EU under the RUSDA regime for spreading “pro-Russia propaganda”. Here is the EU’s justification for the sanctions:
He acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda and makes conspiracy theories, for example accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO. Therefore, Jacques Baud is responsible for implementing or supporting actions or policies attributable to the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten stability or security in a third country (Ukraine) by engaging in the use of information manipulation and interference.
When you dig a little deeper, you find the reasoning for the sanctions does not seem to match what Baud actually said.
Baud was primarily accused of pushing a ““conspiracy theory” that Ukraine orchestrated Russia’s invasion so it could join NATO. What he actually did was point out in multiple interviews that Zelensky’s aide Oleksiy Arestovych once told Ukrainian media outlet Apostrophe: “Our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia”.
Baud argued in his books, articles, and interviews that talk of NATO membership put Ukraine on a confrontational path with Russia, but that is not the same as saying Ukraine orchestrated the invasion.
Even if Baud said what he was accused of, he should be allowed to express that position in a free society. You don’t have to agree with Baud’s analysis to see a problem here—he was legally offering an opinion based on an objective fact.
Russia’s “hybrid activities”, including information manipulation and cyber activity, were used to justify the sanctions against Baud. However, he was not accused of working directly for Russia. The reason for the sanctions seems to be that Baud’s views align with Russia and therefore he is furthering Russia’s goals.
It can’t have escaped your attention that EU leaders manipulate information all the time: Gaza being a case in point. The sanctions justification being another. Clearly, “information manipulation” is a political judgment, not a legal one.
The EU accuses Baud of “conspiracy theories”, but everyone who disagrees with foreign policy is called a conspiracy theorist—this is not an objective term. It is easy for politicians to say their critics’ views align with an adversarial government’s. If you disagree with the Gaza genocide, that view aligns with Hamas. Does that mean you should be sanctioned?
Baud insists he is simply using his knowledge and experience to provide his expert analysis on the Ukraine war. The problem is the EU has reclassified opinion and analysis as “information manipulation” with no clear criteria for doing so, meaning any opinion or analysis can result in sanctions at the whim of politicians.
While Baud is appealing the sanctions at the European Court of Justice, courts tend to defer to politicians when it comes to matters of security. Therefore, it is possible the sanctions will remain in place without Baud getting a full and clear explanation for them.
Baud is not able to access his own bank accounts or even get on an aeroplane. Not only can he not enter EU countries, he can’t even pass through them. He currently lives in Belgium so it seems he can’t return to his native Switzerland, and even if he could, Switzerland is a landlocked country, meaning he would be trapped!
Baud explained he can’t even get third parties to help him financially due to legal hurdles. While it is technically only EU-based assets that are sanctioned, any financial activity that comes through an EU intermediary is forbidden, making it near-impossible for any European to help him.
It’s worth pointing out that Baud has not been accused, let alone convicted, of committing a crime. Also, the EU is not in a declared state of war with Russia, meaning the legal justifications for sanctions seem incredibly flimsy.
Baud has essentially been made a non-person for expressing the wrong opinions. The case is so concerning that even the Telegraph published a piece highlighting the constitutional implications. If a government can cut someone off from society by citing national security, no one can safely disagree with foreign policy.
The UK has seen relentless censorship and lawfare in recent years with individuals such as Craig Murray, Kit Klarenberg, Asa Winstanley, and others getting in trouble for their journalism. It seems plausible these individuals could end up being sanctioned by their own government.
The UK recently imposed sanctions on one of its citizens—journalist and ex-civil servant Graham Phillips—for publishing information from the Donbas which contradicts western narratives on the Ukraine war. Phillips is currently stuck in the Donbas because the sanctions forbid him from returning home or accessing his money. He is effectively in exile and unable to visit his elderly parents.
Sanctions have not succeeded in disrupting the activities of Phillips or Baud because they are not banned from speaking and have continued doing so. It is only their daily lives that have been disrupted. It is therefore difficult to see the sanctions as anything other than punitive.
In both cases, it is unclear when the sanctions will end, or what the men can do in order for them to be stopped. It seems the sanctions will only end when politicians feel like ending them.
In order for someone to be sanctioned, they do not have to be convicted of any crime, politicians just have to cite “security concerns” and that is enough. This means politicians have a god-like power to silence their critics and due process doesn’t factor into the equation. This is as anti-democratic as it gets.
It seems a matter of time until Substack writers are being sanctioned. They don’t have to ban our newsletters, just cut off our income. One Substack writer—Caitlin Johnstone—was recently put on a list by Israel. It named her as the number one antisemite in Australia because she opposes genocide.
The push across the West to make us upload our IDs to use the internet is to ensure they know exactly who is saying what and can choose their preferred censorship method. Some of us will be shadow-banned. Some will be suspended. Some will be demonetised. Some will be arrested. Some will be jailed. And some will be sanctioned.
Thank you for reading. All of my content will always be freely available, but if you wish to support my work, you can do so at Ko-fi or Patreon. Likes, shares and comments also help massively.
The USA has sanctioned UN rapporteur on Gaza, Francesca Albanese, making it impossible for her to have a bank account, to get paid, or to use anything but cash. Canada has introduced legislation that will allow and foster the same authoritarian state activity. It's less expensive than jailing people and can have even more serious consequences. The western nations (Europe and North America) are rapidly moving into full fascist mode. Unfortunately, it now seems irreversible without widespread resistance, such as on-going general strikes and surrounding government centres.
The repression of dissenting opinion is the very thing all these centrist liberals were tut-tutting about in relation to McCarthyism and the Red Scare.
Now all those worthy TV shows, plays and films about the savage repression of free speech were just a waste of time, it seems, as the very same people who got angry at the McCarthyites are quite happy to have Starmer and Von Der Leyen stomp out freedom of expression.
Before they said Orwell's 1984 was a cautionary tale, now it's an instruction manual.