British journalist Graham Phillips lost his High Court bid to overturn his homeland’s sanctions against him that were imposed in July 2022 in response to the content that he produced from Donbass. Philipps earned a reputation as the most famous Western journalist covering this now nearly decade-long conflict from the eastern side of the front lines. His work counteracts the pro-Kiev bias in the Mainstream Media by presenting the other side of the story, which helps others better make up their mind about this issue.
The state and the judge felt differently, however, per these excerpts from the Express & Star’s report:
“The Government opposed the ex-civil servant’s legal challenge and said he was sanctioned for ‘supporting the Russian war’ by producing and publishing ‘propagandist video content which glorifies the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its atrocities, and promotes disinformation advanced by Russia as a justification for the invasion’.
In a ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Johnson concluded that the sanctions were lawful and a ‘proportionate’ interference with Mr Phillips’s human rights alongside ‘the legitimate aim of protecting the UK’s national security’. The judge said Mr Phillips ‘decided to set his face against an overwhelming international consensus, to align himself with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to travel to the frontline, and to help Russia fight its propaganda war’.
He added: ‘He has not shown any journalistic responsibility or ethics. His actions directly support Russia in its policies or actions that destabilise Ukraine. There are good reasons to take a firm stand against that conduct so as to pursue the purpose of the (Russia sanctions regulations) and seek to encourage Russia to change its course.’”
These statements are very troubling for the reasons that will now be explained throughout this piece.
The state’s pretext for sanctioning Phillips rests in his “propagandist video content which glorifies the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its atrocities, and promotes disinformation advanced by Russia as a justification for the invasion.” In other words, the product of his journalistic work reporting from the eastern side of the front lines is deemed worthy of far-reaching financial restrictions, thus meaning that the UK is literally punishing him and ruining his life just because he reported the other side of the story.
The judge’s agreement with the state’s restriction of his human rights on the basis of “protecting the UK’s national security” extends credence to the preceding conclusion by reaffirming that narrative plurality is regarded by London as a threat to the country. What’s all the more shocking about this realization is that the UK isn’t formally a participant in this conflict, yet wartime censorship is being applied in this case, which undermines the state’s official claim that it’s not directly at war with Russia.
Furthermore, the judge is factually wrong for condemning Phillips’ alleged lack of “journalistic responsibility or ethics” since it’s the epitome of his profession’s ethical responsibility to ensure that coverage of all conflicts isn’t biased, ergo why he traveled to the eastern side of the front line to report. Sharing the other side of the story doesn’t objectively “support” that same side despite whatever one’s personal preferences in any given conflict may be, nor does it “destabilize” the other in and of itself.
It’s also absurd that the judge justified his ruling as supposedly “pursuing the purpose of the (Russia sanctions regulations) and seeking to encourage Russia to change its course” since it’s unrealistic to imagine that President Putin will shift his associated calculations as a result of this case. The conflict’s dynamics are determined by the policies of each state-level participant, including those that are indirectly involved like the UK, not a single journalist’s reports from any given side of the front line.
The takeaway from Phillip’s ordeal is that the UK has de facto criminalized the creation of video content that shares contrarian perspectives of the Ukrainian Conflict that contradict the official one. In particular, those who report from the eastern side of the front line are subject to British sanctions just like him, though it’s unclear whether someone vlogging from their home would receive the same. Nevertheless, the legal precedent established by this case is troubling, and everyone should resolutely condemn it.
