Free Speech BANNED at “Green Gathering”
Fake Green Fascists at the Green Gathering in the UK banned Mark Windows and Piers Corbyn from speaking.
Marks talks was about shutting down free speech, Piers talk was about the Climate.
Despite several requests for a response to our points presented in the video we received no response.
Here is the e mail sent by the Green Gathering: Muggeridge <email@example.com>
Date: 19 July 2017 15:59:09 GMT+01:00
We are writing with regard to the invitation for Piers Corbyn and Mark Windows to speak in the forum at the GG this year.
While it has always been and remains the policy of the GG to platform diverse speakers, activities and entertainment, our charitable status does require limits to what me might platform. One of the key objectives of the charity is education for sustainability and transition. While that may encompass many viewpoints, speakers on human impact on climate change denial and conspiracy theories regarding some well established international environmental policy initiatives undermine the educational objectives of the charity and event.
While Piers position is well documented, it is regarded as a particularly minority view in comparison with the consensus of the IPCC and the scientific community. Marks’ views clearly lack academic rigour and neither appropriate education. There are other activities etc at GG that lack academic vigour but these are counter-intuitive to whole GG mission.
Therefore we are taking the unusual action of requesting that you withdraw the invitation to those speakers.
We understand that this may cause you some embarrassment, which is not intended. We don’t intend either to micro-manage any area content for orthodoxy or heresy but on this occasion directors and trustees concerned that the subjects and their promotion are just too counter-intuitive to the GG core mission take an interest in Jeremy’s less famous brother and also risk damaging publicity in mainstream media which may ,take an interest in Jeremy’s less famous brother, with a view to embarrassing both the Labour Party and the GG.
This is not a decision we have come to lightly and we thank you for your co operation and will continue to assist in any other way.
Shane, Em, Linda and Steve Muggs
Our response to all points:
In response to your e mail re: talks by Piers Corbyn and Mark Windows can you please clarify the following points and answer the questions raised by your censorship and the assumptions made in your e mail.
You state: “While it has always been and remains the policy of the GG to platform diverse speakers, activities and entertainment, our charitable status does require limits to what me might platform.”
Can you clearly define what limits there are to what is spoken about as the two talks contain information in the public domain and in the public interest.
Can you state how the charity commission, your charity and your mission statement differ from what is stated in the Human Rights Act?
1 Piers Corbyns’ talk on weather and climate has been presented by many institutions (including charities) and contains only factual material which is in the public domain and there are no moral or legal reasons why it should be banned by yourselves from a third party venue at an event you are managing.
Mark Windows’ talk, “The Post Truth World” contains information which is in the public domain and in the public interest. It contains factual analysis and data sourced from government legislation, publicly funded organisations and policy makers. The talk is about human rights and free speech.
The human rights act clearly states that within the law there are inalienable rights to free speech, everything in these talks is within the scope of The Act and breaches no known laws
Can you explain why you fail to comply with The Human Rights Act?
Reference to Articles 9 and 10:
The right to freedom of expression is crucial in a democracy – information and ideas help to inform political debate and are essential to public accountability and transparency in government.
Article 10 gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State interference.
This includes the right to communicate and to express oneself in any medium, including through words, pictures, images and actions (including through public protest and demonstrations).
The type of expression protected includes:
political expression (including comment on matters of general public interest); artistic expression; and commercial expression, particularly when it also raises matters of legitimate public debate and concern.
Public authorities cannot interfere with your right to hold or change your beliefs, but there are some situations in which public authorities can interfere with your right to manifest or show your thoughts, belief and religion. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to protect:
public safety public order, health or morals and the rights and freedoms of other people.
Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.
It is stated by yourselves on behalf of The Green Gathering:
“One of the key objectives of the charity is education for sustainability and transition. While that may encompass many viewpoints, speakers on human impact on climate change denial and conspiracy theories regarding some well established international environmental policy initiatives undermine the educational objectives of the charity and event.”
You state that the key objectives are “Sustainability and Transition”, these are politicised propaganda terms and have no legal meaning or factual standing.
These terms are used by The UN under Agenda 21/2130.
Why is this statement described by yourselves as “educational”?
Can you explain what you mean by “many viewpoints”?
Can you explain what you mean by “conspiracy theories”?
“Established international environmental policy initiatives” are not factual, they are policies which are not proven to be in the public interest or in most cases not legally binding.
You use the term “Climate change Denial”, this is a propagandised term and has no legal meaning. It is a term used by those who hold rigidly to a belief which is not scientifically proven.
No one can possibly deny that the climate changes.
Neither speaker has stated that the climate does not change.
The climate is always changing, this is the only known consensus on the subject.
“While Piers’ position is well documented, it is regarded as a particularly minority view in comparison with the consensus of the IPCC and the scientific community.”
1 The IPCC “consensus” is actually a minority view which is presented as fact, there is no evidence that the claims of the IPCC are mostly true and it is believed that none exists.
2 The IPCC have provably used fraudulent data and projections which have not manifested and are at best grossly exaggerated. This is in the public domain.
The IPCC is a political, agenda lead organisation and not an unbiased scientific body as you appear to claim.
Can you clarify what you mean by “The scientific community”?
Can you present which unbiased data you are using to assume that Piers may hold a “minority view”.
Why would a “minority view” be untrue or unnacceptable?
Do you discriminate against minorities?
If so which ones, please list them.
If these beliefs are the basis of your “education” they are merely politically motivated propaganda and not factual insruction as the claims are not based on known facts.
There seems to be some confusion in your statement interpreting education as indoctrination.
Please explain what yout interpretation of education is.
“Marks’ views clearly lack academic rigour and neither appropriate education”
Please specify which of my “views”, “clearly” lack academic rigour.
None of the factual information I present is my “view”.
My information is all sourced and fact checked.
I am allowed to hold my own views alongside the facts, these are my inalienable rights and cannot be denied by any person or organisation.
Any views held are within the law and inalienable.
What do you mean by “appropriate education?
This appears to be in the context of what you previously stated as “education” which is merely being in agreement with one sided policy objectives.
If this is not the case please explain fully.
“There are other activities etc at GG that lack academic vigour but these are counter-intuitive to whole GG mission.”
This appears to be an admission that you are censoring the talk, please explain fully what is meant by this statement.
“Therefore we are taking the unusual action of requesting that you withdraw the invitation to those speakers”.
Can you clarify whether you are requesting or ordering the speakers to be withdrawn?
What authority and legal standing are you relying on for this statement?
“We don’t intend either to micro-manage any area content for orthodoxy or heresy but on this occasion directors and trustees concerned that the subjects and their promotion are just too counter-intuitive to the GG core mission take an interest in Jeremy’s less famous brother and also risk damaging publicity in mainstream media which may ,take an interest in Jeremy’s less famous brother, with a view to embarrassing both the Labour Party and the GG.”
1 As you have already stated you clearly intend to micro manage every part of the festival.
2 Please explain how talks on free speech and weather are “counter intuitive” to your “core mission”
3 Your reference to “Jeremys’ less famous brother” appears to be a derogatory statement in the context and use.
Can you explain why you are showing bias in the case of Piers?
4 Under what authority is your organisation speaking on behalf of other media organisations?
Why do you assume that all other media will automatically hold negative views over what Piers has to say?
5 You imply that Piers is an embarrassment to your event and the Labour party, this is untrue and beyond your authority and also not in the public interest.
There is no evidence that this opinion does not expose underlying bias and discrimination against Piers and it is believed that none exists.
Please send a copy of your mission statement and point out how and why talks on free speech and weather are against your policy and not in the public interest.
Response from Piers Corbyn:
It beggars belief that you purportedly choose to interfere in freedom of speech in the purported interests of ONE political party and against the brother (PC) of the leader (JC) of such when he, PC, has been involved in campaigning support for the Party and his brother, JC, for over 50 years
Your political interference is completely contrary to charity law
It is also the fact that anyone of legal fluency who knows of your improper behaviour and who fails to report it to the Charity Commission is guilty of aiding and abetting such impropriety and vulnerable to court action themselves.
Not withstanding any of the following paragraphs we request (prior to GG 2017) information on each of your academic and technical qualifications andrequire a discussion meeting (prior to GG 2017) of us two and you four and we suggest you bring a qualified scientist with you who is in command of the facts and developments in climate matters – where for your information it is now apparent there never has been consensus support for the CO2 driven climate idea but only a number of scientists eager to receive funding support simply for saying they were looking into CO2 effects if any on climate.
It is also now clear that the UN claims on climate (now openly challenged by Presidents Trump and Putin and ex-president of France Sarkozy) which came from the same stable as WMDs are equally as reliable as the (false) WMD claims which led to the Iraq war, millions being killed and current waves of terror and strife in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe.
Therefore we suggest your best course of action is to withdraw the letter unreservedly, apologize to us, re-instate the platform we were granted in good faith at GG and apologize to GG in public for any slights or misunderstandings that may have been unintentionally perpetrated against us.
It goes without saying that the ‘open platform’ / diverse activities and charitable status of GG does NOT require you to act as thought police against views or scientific or other findings you may not understand or agree with; but rather it requires you NOT to act in such a manner.
It is beyond belief that your approach even sees the light of day when the origin of the green festivals and gatherings around stonehenge and the associated housing & squatting movement in the 1970’s in which one of us was involved and arrested over 40 times was the total antithesis of the attitude of the purported signatories.
Piers Corbyn and Mark Windows
Piers Corbyn holds: MSc (astrophysics) Queen Mary College, ARCS, Bsc 1st class Physics & theoretical Physics Imperial College and was elected FRMetS (Weather Action corporate member) and elected FRAS. In IC he was known amongst his peers as “the sharpest tool in the box” and in his role as the first democratically elected President of Imperial College Student Union he layed the basis for diversifying the courses of Imperial College which made it possible for IC to become independent of the University of London and currently one of the top 5 or 10 universies in the world.
He has had published peer-reviwed papers (starting from when he was at school) on a wide raneg of subjects including meteorology and cosmology.
As a Councillor 1986-90 he was chairman of the public-private consortium board which created the exemplary SELCHP (SouthEast London Combined Heat & Power) – the refuse burning station for Southwark, Lewisham and other Councils converting waste into electricity.
He regularly speaks at meetings of scientists, engineers, farmers, commodity traders retailers, insurers, energy operators, polticians, the Truth/Freedom movement and green groups – hundreds in the last 30 years – in UK including at Parliament and the Institute of Physics and Royal Society and abroad including the Russian Academy of Sciences, Colorado State university, Houston Texas, The Electric Universe Conference New Mexico, New York, South Africa (‘The Greenest Event’), Paris, Geneva, Tunisia, Oslo, Copenhagen, Lago-Di-Como, Firenze and many others. He has received exalted awards and recognition for his speaking and never once had an invitation withdrawn or even questioned despite the ‘controversial’ nature of the issues at times.
He has appeared on many TV and radio shows including BBC, ITV, Sky, LBC, FoxNews, AlJazeera, SouthAfrica, Iran etc.
He is legally experienced, has spoken in many courts (as witness, defendant, advisor etc) and his name appears in the English Law books – records of the High Court (Court Of Appeal) in two instances. He is a Principal Correspondent (as someone spied upon) in the current public inquiry into police infiltration of radical groups since 1968.
He has been a board member of a homeless charity (SHIP) answerable to the Lottery Fund.
He is his brother’s brother or more precisely JC used to be his brother but now he is JC’s brother. PC was on JC’s campaign bus on its final trip on election eve.
Journalist, researcher and film maker. My work speaks for itself and I
will defend the legal standing of anything I present as fact in the public domain.
This is a matter of public interest and is now in the public domain.
All information relating to this matter can be used in any form, in any medium in any part of the world without prior notice.