Oh, The Services of Islington Council

January 12, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

labour.jpg

Introduction by GA: Many of us have, in the past, been open to leftist ideas. Ethically oriented thinkers are still excited by the idea of equality, freedom and opposition to racism. Sadly, these ideals are not reflected in New Left politics. While the Old Left taught us to transcend gender, race, sexual preference etc., the New Left builds walls dividing us along those same lines. As much as the Old Left was inspired to openness by Orwell’s criticism of the tyrannical, the New Left has slipped into that authoritarian dystopia. In a Kafkaesque manner that defies any reasonable rationale, the New Left is consumed with interfering with freedom of expression, meaning expression that does not comply with its strict newspeak protocol. The New Left bureaucracy is oblivious to the intent of the law and uses the form of the law to impose its will.

The Islington Council, a ‘Labour’ run operation, exemplifies everything that has gone wrong with New Left ideology, politics and practice. It operates bureaucratically masking its authoritarian positions,  following forms of procedure that are without substance so that the Council effectively insulates itself from its constituents and the rest of society.

We have to ask why, why is the New Left removed from traditional Labour values? Why is it detached from the people? Why would the New Left want to act as an obvious  Zionist tool? Why is it determined to bring Jeremy Corbyn down?

The answer is simple. The ideological and spiritual roots of the traditional Left came from working class politics. Traditionally, Labour and Left leaders both came from the working people and unions. They were proletarians who were inherently connected with the their class, its needs and its values. This ended when the evaporation of manufacturing made the working class workless. The unions have collapsed and the orientation of Labour politics has shifted radically. Instead of aspiring to be working class and union heroes, young Labour politicians are most often a dysfunctional herd of spoiled middle class former university activists who mature into party commissars. These New Left politicians may never have had to work and are in any case totally removed from the working people and their values as well as the values of the Old Left.

In the following article Eve Mykytyn dissects Islington Council’s institutional duplicity, the council’s formulaic pretences and most disappointingly, its removal from the Labour values of freedom and work.  While many of us are sympathetic to Corbyn and his politics, Britain may want to think twice before it gives his party greater access  to government. Labour politics seems to mean – end to free Britain as we know it. We shouldn’t let this happen. We better make sure that the Labour Party fix itself first.

 

Oh, The Services of Islington Council

 By  Eve Mykytyn

How does Islington Council respond to complaints about its decision to ban Atzmon?

The Islington Council issued a ‘detailed’ ‘stage one’ response to a complaint from a ticket holder(TH). The initial complaint, dated 19/12/18, expressed ‘disgust’ at the decision to ban Atzmon and a desire to see a music concert “that has no antisemitism in its show. ” In her first response, Lucinda Brown, venue business manager, had on 21/12/18 (the date of the concert) directed TH  to the Council’s (non) statement on its site.

As of  11/2/19 Ms Brown claims she “had the opportunity to investigate the details” of the complaint  and her “findings were as follows:” Contact the promoter and “raise a complaint.”  Ms. Brown then finds that the complaint has been duly  investigated at “stage one of Islington’s Complaint procedure and not upheld.” TH was given 30 days to reply.

The Council claims to be a service organisation. What service did TH get? What might Ms. Brown have ‘investigated’? Did she herself check with the promoters to see if refunds were available?  Since the Council itself had prevented Atzmon from playing, a simple “I’m sorry” might have been more satisfying than the insulting pretence that a refund would be forthcoming if TH were simply to “raise a complaint.”  Why did Ms. Brown send this answer at all?  Does sending a nonsensical jargon filled note help to feign service?

London Councils, the parent organisation of Islington Council provides for a three step complaint procedure in which the complainant is entitled at each successive phase to have his appeal reexamined by an employee higher up the council ladder. Mr. Atzmon’s appeals were handled first by Martin Bevis, the assistant director of Financial Operations & Customer Service and then by Ian Adams, the director of Financial Operations and Customer Service . Mr. Atzmon was not informed of or offered the third level of review to the Corporate Complaints Officer of the London Council. The Council’s policy provides that  a complaint will only be reviewed at Stage 3 if “at the discretion…there is a clear reason for dissatisfaction….or that any remedy proposed is insufficient.” Atzmon was never given the chance to make a case for a third appeal. There is even a fourth step available, if appeals one-three fail to satisfy the complainant, he may bring the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman at the London Councils.

Why was Atzmon not fully informed of his rights of review?

Atzmon would seem to be included in the Council’s mission statement, which reads as follows: “We’re determined to make Islington fairer. To create a place where everyone, whatever their background, has the opportunity to reach their potential and enjoy a good quality of life.” Did they add, ‘if we agree with their opinions?’

The Council made its decision weighing two competing interests. First, the rights of Mr Atzmon under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act of 1998 “to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” Article 10 restricts this right as follows: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law…”

Article 10 makes clear that the right to free speech is not subject to a balancing test unless the speech violates a law. Atzmon, having crossed no legal limits in his speech, was not subject to speech restrictions. Indeed, the ban had to do with prior speech, no one alleged that Atzmon would speak while playing the saxophone at a rock concert.

The council referred to and quickly dismissed Atzmon’s rights under Article 10, citing article 10 rights to earn a living (which is not a provision of Article 10) and deciding that Article 10 rights are subservient to the Council’s duty under S 149 of the Equality Act of 2010. Are individual liberties properly curtailed by a council acting under a general non discrimination mandate? What if the Council thought it could make Islington safer for a protected group by bursting into homes instead of banning employment, would this be a legitimate override of personal freedom?

The Council claimed that its ban was necessitated by the law it found controlling, “the legal duty placed on the Council by s.149 of the Equality Act 2010.” But does the equality act even mandate the Council’s actions?

S 149 part 1 states the general purpose of the rule:  that a public authority must perform its duties with due regard to three factors; a. to eliminate discrimination, b to provide for equal opportunity and, c to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

Section (5) of 149 explains how to ‘foster good relations’ as required by section 1(c). “Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to (a)tackle prejudice, (b)promote understanding.”

Mr Bevis and Mr. Adams ‘found’ that Atzmon’s views are well known and disliked in the Jewish community. But both men went beyond this. Acting not as lawyers, judges (or may I assume scholars of Jewish identity politics) they pronounced Atzmon’s comments  “to be, [regarded as] at the lowest, provocative and distasteful, and, at the highest, anti-Semitic and racist by many, particularly those in the Jewish community.”

Based on their personal (and not legal) reading of materials provided by opponents of Atzmon, the Council concluded that good relations with the Jewish community would be harmed by Atzmon’s appearance. Tickets to the concert cost money and the musicians were known. Were many Jews likely to find offence also likely to pay to attend a rock Christmas concert with Gilad Atzmon?

Further, while some may have cheered the Council’s choice to disregard Atzmon’s Section 10 rights, how did his banning help to foster good relations between Jews and others? What about the ‘others’ who merely wanted to go to the concert? What groups did the Council integrate with the Jews to foster good relations?

Or does ‘fostering good relations’ mean banning any speech any protected group objects to?


If you are a British citizen, you can file a Freedom of Information request asking for records relating to Gilad Atzmon’s ban, the standards relied upon for that purpose and the process and assistance used by Bevis and Adams in their decision making.

You can do this by using Islington Council’s complaints form here, by writing to Islington Council at 222 Upper Street, London N1 1XR, or by fax to 020 7527 5001.

To sign a petition in support of Gilad click here

Lodge a formal complaint with Islington Council: https://www.islington.gov.uk/contact-us/comments-and-complaints?status=inprogress

Advertisements

The way forward…

January 11, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

The-way-forward-for-SMFS.png

Dear Friends and Supporters,

As you know, last year the nonstop slanderous blitz against me escalated with the stated purpose of destroying my music career and ruining me financially. Blowing the whistle on the roots of the current dystopia, and even simply honest debate, has been exhausting and expensive. Thanks to you I am not fighting this war alone.

Many thousands of you donated to bail me out and a substantial portion of my legal costs have been covered. I was excited and encouraged that thousands of music lovers and freedom enthusiasts signed the petition against Islington Council and filed complaints against this fully compromised ‘Labour’ authority that was caught in bed with the Likud UK director.

In the last few days I gave a series of house talks with music events throughout California. In each city I visited I explored my ideas with people many of whom were relatively new to my work. The events were a great success. By speaking directly to a smaller group, I could convey my ideas and have the time to discuss questions raised by those in attendance. It is an incredible way to make people think about and analyse identity politics and other issues that have led to our current situation. I intend to offer more talks (and music) in as many different regions as I can. Please let me know whether you are willing to arrange such an event in your town.

The battle ahead is demanding and unfortunately will necessitate  expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Beyond Kafka: How Youtube & Facebook Keep Purging Alternative Media

Beyond Kafka: How Youtube & Facebook Keep Purging Alternative Media

January 09, 2019

Hassan Nasrallah is persona non grata on Social Networks, where Anti-Zionism is the ultimate thoughtcrime 

With a comment from Norman Finkelstein

The guillotine’s blade fell again, one year later. On December 2017 already, my 5-years-old Youtube channel Sayed Hasan, mainly translating speeches from Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, was completely removed by Youtube, along with its 10 000 subscribers, +6 millions views and +400 subtitled videos of anti-Zionist & anti-Imperialist content. I then denunced this censorship in detail in my article Kafka 2.0: How Youtube’s Political Censorship is Exercised. And just around New Year’s Eve 2019, the +6000 Subscribed Facebook Page Resistance News Unfiltered, along with all its similar content, got deleted without explanation. The only thing left online is a cache view of the page dating back from this summer.
Cache view of the Facebook Page Resistance News Unfiltered, August 2018
I had created this Page at the beginning of 2018, since no other place can compete with Youtube and its near-monopoly on video content, in order to reach a broader audience. But it was deleted without explanation by Facebook short of its first anniversary. I can’t even know the precise date of termination. Youtube did at least bother to send emails notifying of the removal of a video or of a whole channel, but Facebook has only internal notifications for posts removals. Here is how it happened. 

I got two warnings from Facebook, dated December 24th and December 25th, 2018:

When I logged in on December 28th and saw these messages, I immediately appealed the decisions through the automated procedure, as shown above, though the specific posts alledgedly violating the Communnity Standards weren’t even accessible, since they had been removed. It means that I didn’t –and still don’t– even know which posts got me these “strikes”. At least, Youtube was specific about the videos alledgedly violating their rules –three speeches of Hassan Nasrallah–, though they didn’t say more than that. I don’t know if the whole Page was finally removed because of a third “strike” –Facebook does not even state how much “strikes” you can get before termination– or because of something else, like constant flagging and reports by cyber-IDF soldiers and Hasbara trolls. But I am positive it has to do with my anti-Zionist content. It is a blatant attempt to take down important speech and silence already marginalized voices, astated by Vera Eidelman from the ACLU

Of course, one should always protest and complain using the due procedures. After all, Facebook has been known to restore such Pages after the public outcry following their removal without proper reason (TeleSurVenezuelAnalysis, etc.). I did protest, and I am still expecting an answer from them, without much hope, since earlier appeals as old as September 17th are still awaiting a response almost 4 months later, as shown below (screenshot dated January 4th, 2019).

Appeals are not suspensive. Anyway, without any mention of a motive, corpus delicti and mere notification of removal of my page, not even in Facebook’s internal notifications on my personnal account, we are clearly beyond kafkaesque.

This witch-hunt against the voice of the Resistance Axis online, especially Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah (I am the main translator of his speeches in English and French, voluntary and non-affiliated), is not new. Over and over again most often after Israeli-backed indictment campaigns, in 201220142016 and june 2018, Facebook, Youtube and Twitter closed down all accounts affiliated to the Lebanese and Palestinian Resistance, including Al-Manar TV Channel, banned for good. In 2014 and 2016, Facebook was hunting down Nasrallah’s very picture and temporarily blocking the accounts that featured it, even though they were individuals having no link whatsoever with the organization: not only Hezbollah’s missiles and fighters, but the very voice and picture of its Secretary General are considered as an existential threat for Israel, whose paid trolls keep reporting his videos as terrorist hate-speech to ban mercilesslyThe right to information, neutrality or equity is a chimera in the Internet Giants’ turf, where only alternative views, especially videos hostile to Zionism, are subject to censorship and banishment.

On January 8, 2019, Norman Finkelstein commented on the issue:

It is a scandal that the speeches of Hassan Nasrallah are banned on Youtube. Whatever one thinks of his politics, it cannot be doubted that Nasrallah is among the shrewdest and most serious political observers in the world today. Israeli leaders carefully scrutinize Nasrallah’s every word. Why are the rest of us denied this right? One cannot help but wonder whether Nasrallah’s speeches are censored because he doesn’t fit the stereotype of the degenerate, ignorant, blowhard Arab leader. It appears that Western social media aren’t yet ready for an Arab leader of dignified mind and person.

Thankfully, my first article got the attention of Ron Unz, who offered to safeguard my videos in his own website, and I published them back gradually in a new Dailymotion Channel from where they are automatically saved in The Unz Review’s internal storage system. Thus, even if they end up deleted by Dailymotion, they’ll still be accessible in one and same place without need to re-upload them again. I will keep posting my videos on Dailymotion –though it has its own, more subtle way of censorship: age-restricting videos, burying them in the search results… –, and I call on everyone to subscribe to my channel on the Unz Review (RSS feed) and on all those who can to donate to support this work. Whatever happens, the Electronic Intifada to which Hassan Nasrallah called will carry on.

Sayed Hasan

Donate as little as you can to support this work or become a Patron, and subscribe to get around censorship

Use the online form or send an email to Facebook to denounce the removal of the Page Resistance News Unfilteredinfo@facebook.comdisabled@facebook.comappeals@facebook.cominfo@support.facebook.com

British Labour? Labour Zionism more likely

December 20, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke

Although some of us still harbor hopes for  Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour party has not exactly been a happy collective. Labour can look like a treacherous herd spitting poison and stabbing each other in the back. Bruke might have said that for evil to triumph all that is needed is a few Labourites to accomplish what they do best: being compromised. The following may shatter any hopes you still clung to for a  Labour transition. I apologise in advance.

The current saga was launched last month by Mr. Martin Rankoff, an ultra Zionist campaigner,  a man who is not afraid to express himself in the most gruesome manner.

Here is Martin Rankoff’s hate spewing  twitter page.

rankoff twitter.png

Apparently, Mr Rankoff doesn’t like Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Screen Shot 2018-12-19 at 17.02.10.png

Bad taste humour is something Goyim may not remember from the oh-so-distant past when the Brits reigned supreme in poking fun at those in power. Within the Zionist cyber universe, however, no one is even mildly offended by Rankoff’s attempted humor as he seems to enjoy imagining pushing our mild mannered Labour leader off of his non-carbon emitting bicycle :

Screen Shot 2018-12-19 at 17.05.48.png

But apparently, the mere thought of my playing the saxophone with the Blockheads at a Christmas celebration pained the humorless Mr. Rankoff. So Mr. Rankoff  wrote to the Islington Council to express his indignation. How could the Council  allow a critic of Jewish culture to play Christmas music? The thought caused him to want to give away his ticket.  All who believe Mr. Rankoff ever intended to attend the Blockheads’ Christmas concert, raise your hand!

For the occasion, Mr. Rankoff managed to restrain his humor and wrote an earnest sounding missive:

rankoff to Council2.jpg

I hardly have an issue with Mr Rankoff,  but it is nice to see him acknowledge what the rest of us know, Mr. Corbyn, whatever his flaws, is not a racist. But Rankoff is doing what many Zionist activists so often do – smear and slander.

Islington is a Labour Council. But it seems the officers involved didn’t bother to check who Mr, Rankoff was or to take a look at Rankoff’s grotesque anti- Corbyn anti-Labour social media profile. In fact, the Leader of the Council Cllr Richard Watts, rushed to appease the man who told Corbyn to shut his Hanukah greeting where the ‘sun doesn’t shine.’

The Following is Labour politician and Cllr Richard Watts email to Martin Rankoff as published  by Mr Rankoff.

Watts aabbos goy .jpg

Rankoff professed his delight and  somewhat speak for the “Jewish community at large” as he praised Labour politician Watts for “embrac[ing] the spirit of Hanukah”  by interfering with the artistic offerings of the last standing working-class band in the Kingdom:

rankoff to Watts.jpg

I fully appreciate that Hanukah is a prime holiday for British politicians. It provides an extended opportunity to prove their commitment and loyalty to Israel and its Lobby. But maybe, someone should remind Cllr Watts that most Brits actually celebrate Christmas and that hundreds of music lovers had bought tickets for the Blockheads Christmas concert, and that one may presume that in doing so they intended to hear all of the Blockheads.

Perhaps Cllr Watts didn’t think that Mr. Rankoff would publish their correspondence. In it,  Cllr Watts is caught shamelessly toadying to an enemy of the Labour party and to the Board of Deputies a body that claims to represent British Jews and uses their self-appointed platform to torture  Labour’s leader. Does Cllr Watts perform his embarrassing prostration for his Leader or against his Leader? It is beyond me. The only thing that is clear, as far as I can tell, is that Labour politician Watts made the wrong decision.

In the coming days we will learn more about how the Labour Council zigged and zagged in a most distressing way to justify banning a saxophone from the Blockheads. Instead of simply fixing its mistake, the Council dug itself a muddy ditch. To be continued…

To sign a petition and express your disgust with Islington Council click here

Lodge a formal complaint: https://www.islington.gov.uk/contact-us/comments-and-complaints?status=inprogress

Email: assemblyhall@islington.gov.uk

Contact the Council: +4420 7527 2000

Support Gilad: https://donorbox.org/gilad-needs-additional-support

The Blockheads are outraged at the ruling by Islington Council

December 19, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

The Blockheads were approached yesterday by the Jewish News newspaper in regard to the recent outrageous Islington Council’s decision to ban me from playing with the band this Friday because one right wing pro Israeli campaigner threatened that he may give his ticket away if I am on stage.

Following is Mick Gallagher’s statement for and on behalf of THE BLOCKHEADS:

“The Blockheads have performed over 1000 shows with Gilad and have NEVER been a threat to anyone.......WE ARE ENTERTAINERS!”

“The Blockheads have performed over 1000 shows with Gilad and have NEVER been a threat to
anyone…….WE ARE ENTERTAINERS!”

The Blockheads are outraged at the ruling by Islington Council to ban
Gilad Atzmon from appearing with the band on 21st December at Islington
Assembly Hall.

We were contacted by our agent last Tuesday who told us that Islington
Council would cancel the show if we insisted on Gilad playing with the
band.

This, apparently, was in response to a complaint they had received from
someone posing as an ‘Avid Blockhead fan’ who objected to Gilad’s
presence on stage with us because of his political views and rhetoric.
Branding him an anti Semite!

Gilad has never been accused or charged of ‘hate crime’ by any formal
body.

The musicians Gilad plays with are all multi cultural (including Jewish
musicians) and he is highly rated and an integral member of THE
BLOCKHEADS.

GILAD PLAYS THE SAXOPHONE!

They said we would be in violation of 2 clauses (50 & 51) in their
agreement for the renting of the hall.

Clause 50
You must not ,in connection with any live event use, provide or display
any material whether written or spoken, or allow behaviour that
constitutes direct or indirect discrimination or harassment,
victimisation of, vilification of, any person or group of persons on the
grounds of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, disability,
religion or age.

Clause 51
With this in mind, you must exercise your reasoned opinion in deciding
whether the venue is suitable for each Live Event. If the Islington
Assembly Hall Team decides a Live Event contravenes any of the above the
Live Event will be cancelled and you will not be reimbursed or
compensated for any inconvenience and/or any detriment arising from the
cancellation.

The Blockheads have performed over 1000 shows with Gilad (two at
Islington Assembly Halls already) and have NEVER been a threat to
anyone…….WE ARE ENTERTAINERS!
We do not hold political rallies.

As an author Gilad has criticised Israeli policy, ideology and identity
but does not use Blockhead gigs as a platform for his views.

Everyone may not agree with Gilad but , in this country, he is supposed
to have the right to air his opinions freely and encourage open
discussion on matters that are important to him.

We feel that Islington Council are enabling the victimisation/harassment
and discrimination of Gilad by this ILLEGAL ruling and are indeed in
breach of their own Clause 50.

Mick Gallagher
for and on behalf of THE BLOCKHEADS

To sign a petition in support of Gilad click here

Lodge a formal complaint: https://www.islington.gov.uk/contact-us/comments-and-complaints?status=inprogress

Email: assemblyhall@islington.gov.uk

Contact the Council: +4420 7527 2000

Support Gilad: https://donorbox.org/gilad-needs-additional-support

PayPal or Z-Pal

Yemen’s Al-Masirah Network is Blocked! Don’t be Happy, Crimes will always be Uncovered

Zeinab Daher

In the battle between good and bad, surprises are not much surprising!

On Wednesday morning, Yemen’s al-Masirah TV, the voice of resistance amid the ongoing Saudi war on Yemen, was noticed by the company hosting its frequency on the NileSat satellite’s orbit that it submitted to the many political pressures by the US-Saudi aggression block the channel.

An hour and a half later, the measure went into effect. It happened for the second time in less than a month.

Commenting on the latest development, Mr. Hamed Rizq, Head of Political Programs at al-Masirah TV, told al-Ahed News:

“Targeting and banning al-Masirah TV off its audience in Yemen and the Arab world is not new; it is very much related to the field failure of the US-Saudi coalition countries in their aggression in Yemen, especially in the Western Coast battle in which they were inflicted heavy military failure. They were also exposed on the media level because they were promoting their ‘victories’ saying that they controlled al-Hudaydah, while al-Massirah TV and the Military Media was proving the opposite of all such rumors.”

He went on to list the reasons behind the measure as saying: “They also wanted to ban al-Masirah because of its educational role among the Yemeni people, which was clearly witnessed through the success in massive commemoration of the birth anniversary of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]. This made them rise against the channel that proved influential among the people as well as in raising their morale, in addition to rising against the aggression in all forms and domains.”

While the opposite media proved its failure in the face of the Yemeni media, especially al-Masirah, they were obliged to deal with this failure by covering the truth of al-Masirah TV, the mirror that reflects the true situation, Rizq added.

“Moreover, the massacres committed by the aggression forces, and the escalating humanitarian situation that has been exposed and criticized by the world represent one of the reasons behind this practice.” The man stressed that al-Masirah plays a significant role in uncovering the “coalition’s” massacres and crimes.

A reason added is the Arab people’s solidarity with Yemen. The Yemeni media, al-Masirah in particular, play a key role in delivering injustice happening in Yemen to the world. Now in Tunisia, Morocco, Iraq, Lebanon and many other countries, there are popular movements standing in solidarity with Yemen and denouncing the Saudi crimes there, the Yemeni journalist said.

The previous causes are related to the meantime; but what about the coming days?

According to Mr. Rizq, targeting the channel would signal to an upcoming military escalation. It is an attempt to cover up more crimes the coalition is tending to commit against civilians in Yemen. It is also an early announcement of the failure of political path and negotiations being discussed, especially by UN envoy to Yemen Martin Griffiths.

Anyhow, al-Masirah considers that this step is a testimony by the enemy about its effectiveness. We are not the first channel to be banned, which if it means something, then it is the bankruptcy of the opposite side, as well as the influence the channel is making among the public. This happens with al-Manar TV, the number one channel in the fight against the “Israeli” enemy. Al-Aqsa TV in Gaza was also banned.

“The battle of words between us and them will continue, and we will certainly prevail,” Rizq stressed.

Indeed, in the time of open media, they cannot hide the truth or blind the people’s eyes from following up the updates in Yemen and in any other place.

Al-Masirah channel noted that its broadcast can be followed instead on the Russian satellite AM 44, at frequency 11177 vertical, coding rate 3000.

It is also possible for people inside Yemen to follow the broadcast via radio, online and live streaming, in addition to the social media networks that will continue to operate as usual.

In the same respect, al-Masirah considered that act is a legal breach under the signed agreements, and that the network has the full legal right to continue broadcasting.

Source: Al-Ahed News, Lebanon

Hezbollah: Blocking of Resistance Media Outlets Proves Their Efficiency

Hezbollah flag

Hezbollah denounced on Wednesday NileSat’s decision to block the broadcast of Yemen’s Al-Massira TV Channel, considering it as an Immoral move aimed at subduing Arab people.

In a statement, Hezbollah maintained that NileSat move reflects its complete obedience to the will of the forces launching the Saudi-led aggression on Yemen and proves the efficiency of the honest media in exposing their war crimes as well as cases of failure in the battlefield.

Hezbollah demanded NileSat administration to undo its decision, expressing solidarity with Al-Massira TV and the “brave” people of Yemen.

Hezbollah also condemned the Zionist step of blocking the Palestinian resistance websites, stressing that this proves the success of the resistance media in exposing the enemy’s crimes and raise the morale of the Palestinian people.

Hezbollah expressed solidarity with the resistance media outlets, reiterating support to them in their struggle to liberate the land and the sanctities.

Source: Hezbollah Media Relations (Translated by Al-Manar English Website)

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: