
The UK government is increasingly monitoring the online activities of its potential critics and is blocking them out of government-funded events, a new Observer report has claimed.
According to the report, several government departments, including the departments of health, culture, media and sport, and environment, food and rural affairs, have been instructed to monitor the social media accounts of certain experts who speak out against the government’s policies.
In some cases, Google searches are run targeting special individuals, and based on their views, steps are taken to ensure they don’t use governmental events to criticise the administration.
According to the Observer, the UK government is compiling ‘secret files’ to censor its opponents, which is unlawful as per the country’s constitution.
In September, three early-childhood education experts claimed the Department of Education tried to cancel their invitation to speak at a government-funded event just because they spoke against the education policy.
But later, human rights experts at law firm Leigh Day revealed that the practice was not limited to the Department of Education and in fact, is quite widespread.
Watch:Can Rishi Sunak keep Tory voters happy?
Now the firm is pursuing legal action against the government.
Tessa Gregory, partner at Leigh Day, was quoted by the Guardian as saying that these “hidden checks are unlawful, running contrary to data protection laws and potentially breaching equality and human rights legislation.”
The Observer reported that the individuals who make anti-government posts on social media are permanently blacklisted from public events.
It cited Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert, to reveal how his invitation to speak at a UK defence conference was cancelled after officials found his ‘controversial’ posts.
He told the Observer this weekend that he knows of 12 others who have uncovered evidence of similar government blacklisting, most of whom are frightened of speaking out.
“The full extent of this is shocking and probably not fully known. I was lucky enough to be given clearcut, obvious evidence. It’s truly awful,” he was quoted as saying.
“I don’t have a duty of impartiality. Nor should I,” Kaszeta said further, adding, “Trying to extend the civil service code to me because I was merely going to talk to an audience with a handful of civil servants is utterly wrong. I’m not a revolutionary Trotskyite.”
(With inputs from agencies)