UNITED NATIONS GATE, September 28 – In the golden hall of he UN General Assembly access to which is controlled by a single individual, see below, on September 28 Saudi Arabia trashed Qatar and vice versa. Indonesia slammed Vanuatu, which did not reply, for raising the issue of West Papua. Under UNSG Antonio Guterres, legitimate rights don't matter, only power. How arrogant and counter-factual a self-styled world leader is has been revealed in the Leader's contemptuous approach to freedom of the press and whose who even gently chide him on it, including a Nobel Peace Prize winner and one of his envoys to a major country.. No, this is not a reference to Donald Trump, but to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. After revoking Inner City Press' media accreditation amid its questions on his use of public funds, silence on Cameroon and conflicts of interest, Guterres' UN did not respond to Inner City Press' request to cover UNGA 73 and blockedit from a "press freedom" event on September 28. On the same day Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric was asked by Simon Ateba of Today News Africa, transcript here, video here: "Recently, you banned Matthew Lee from Inner City Press and he was questioning you about Cameroon, the UN Secretary-General, the… the… he might have had a different method. Who decides what is right and who decides…
Spokesman Dujarric: The question about… sorry, I'll let you finish first.
Question: Yeah. Who decides, is it not… I mean, who gives you the power to ban people because they are challenging you, because they are questioning you? Did you ban Matthew Lee because he was questioning you about Cameroon, where a dictator has been in power for 36 years? And you banned a journalist who's asking you questions about him? Is that right? Does it make sense to you?
Spokesman: First of all, we've answered the question about Mr. Lee repeatedly, and we've also answered Mr. Lee's questions repeatedly. But, can I just… I'll let you finish if you can let me finish. We've also answered his questions repeatedly for the last 12 years, and we continue to answer the questions that he e-mails in. His accreditation was revoked purely for having repeatedly violated the rules… the accreditation rules, which are transparent, and which you all agree to abide by, which are frankly… most of them are self-policing, and it had nothing to do whatsoever with the content of his writings or the questions that he's asking.
Ateba: I mean, what do you mean banning him for life? What does it mean?
Spokesman: That's not an expression that anyone from here has ever used, and I think I've answered your question on Mr. Lee." Well, no. Dujarric has been answering less than 10% of Inner City Press' written questions. And Alison Smale's ghoulish revocation letter provided no road map to re-apply and she ignored Inner City Press' application to cover UNGA 73. Amina J. Mohammed and chief of staff Maria Luiza Viotti did not answer detailed question about the physical ban on Inner City Press entering the UN even when invited by countries' missions or UN partners like CPJ and Reuters. We'll have more on this. On August 27 Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric answered a question on camera about Guterres banning of Inner City Press by saying that "the revocation of Mr. Lee's credential has to do with creating a hostile environment for diplomats." Vine video with over 1270 views here. But on September 17 Dujarric after trying to avoid or intimidate a question on the same topic said that the decision was by Guterres' Secretariat "without any input from any member state." Video here. So how did Guterres and Smale "know" that diplomats felt a hostile environment? Or was it Guterres who didn't like questions and coverage about his mis use of public funds for junkets to Lisbon, his silence on the slaughter in Cameroon and his son's now exposed business links in Africa? Someone is lying. We'll have more on this. The Nobel Peace Prize winner who has sought the reversal of Guterres' outrageous 56 day and counting ban on Inner City Press even entering the UN is Jose Ramos Horta of Timor Leste, still serving Guterres' UN, who told Inner City Press on August 27, "Dear Matthew I did reach the very inner sanctum of the UN system reporting on your case to no avail. Apologies but I don't know what else I can do." Later on August 27 an independent journalist asked Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric why things are not fixed with Inner City Press' access, since it "looks bad" given other attacks on press freedom. Video here. Dujarric tried to cut the journlist off, insisting to say this is about freedom of the press would be wrong. (Then why is it in the Press Freedom Tracker, here, and the Columbia Journalism Review, among others for example in the UK, Japan,Italy and Cameroon?) Dujarric changed the earlier reference to Inner City Press being in a "garage ramp" - something Guterres' Grand Inquisitor Alison Smale never asked Inner City Press about - to being in the "parking lot." (Inner City Press' pass worked to get there, many use it as a way to exit, and several senior UN official, anti-Guterres sources of Inner City Press ask to meet it and give it documents there. Maybe that's the reason.) Dujarric then said that Inner City Press creates a "hostile environment" for the diplomats, some times correspondents and always UN officials it covers. Seems clear the ban is entirely about freedom of the Press, freedom to question, and a Secretary General and vindictive team of holdovers who seek to retaliate against questions and coverage, including live streamed covering, with a lifetime ban with no appeal. Here is an example of Inner City Press' August 28 questioning at the Delegates Entrance, since Guterres and Alison Smale have banned it from the Security Council stakeout. Is this hostile? Would Guterres, former NYT bureau chief Smale and former former Dujarric like to write Inner City Press' questions? Its articles? Perhaps to omit all refernce to Cameroon and what Guterres did and didn't do?
Spokesman Dujarric: The question about… sorry, I'll let you finish first.
Question: Yeah. Who decides, is it not… I mean, who gives you the power to ban people because they are challenging you, because they are questioning you? Did you ban Matthew Lee because he was questioning you about Cameroon, where a dictator has been in power for 36 years? And you banned a journalist who's asking you questions about him? Is that right? Does it make sense to you?
Spokesman: First of all, we've answered the question about Mr. Lee repeatedly, and we've also answered Mr. Lee's questions repeatedly. But, can I just… I'll let you finish if you can let me finish. We've also answered his questions repeatedly for the last 12 years, and we continue to answer the questions that he e-mails in. His accreditation was revoked purely for having repeatedly violated the rules… the accreditation rules, which are transparent, and which you all agree to abide by, which are frankly… most of them are self-policing, and it had nothing to do whatsoever with the content of his writings or the questions that he's asking.
Ateba: I mean, what do you mean banning him for life? What does it mean?
Spokesman: That's not an expression that anyone from here has ever used, and I think I've answered your question on Mr. Lee." Well, no. Dujarric has been answering less than 10% of Inner City Press' written questions. And Alison Smale's ghoulish revocation letter provided no road map to re-apply and she ignored Inner City Press' application to cover UNGA 73. Amina J. Mohammed and chief of staff Maria Luiza Viotti did not answer detailed question about the physical ban on Inner City Press entering the UN even when invited by countries' missions or UN partners like CPJ and Reuters. We'll have more on this. On August 27 Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric answered a question on camera about Guterres banning of Inner City Press by saying that "the revocation of Mr. Lee's credential has to do with creating a hostile environment for diplomats." Vine video with over 1270 views here. But on September 17 Dujarric after trying to avoid or intimidate a question on the same topic said that the decision was by Guterres' Secretariat "without any input from any member state." Video here. So how did Guterres and Smale "know" that diplomats felt a hostile environment? Or was it Guterres who didn't like questions and coverage about his mis use of public funds for junkets to Lisbon, his silence on the slaughter in Cameroon and his son's now exposed business links in Africa? Someone is lying. We'll have more on this. The Nobel Peace Prize winner who has sought the reversal of Guterres' outrageous 56 day and counting ban on Inner City Press even entering the UN is Jose Ramos Horta of Timor Leste, still serving Guterres' UN, who told Inner City Press on August 27, "Dear Matthew I did reach the very inner sanctum of the UN system reporting on your case to no avail. Apologies but I don't know what else I can do." Later on August 27 an independent journalist asked Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric why things are not fixed with Inner City Press' access, since it "looks bad" given other attacks on press freedom. Video here. Dujarric tried to cut the journlist off, insisting to say this is about freedom of the press would be wrong. (Then why is it in the Press Freedom Tracker, here, and the Columbia Journalism Review, among others for example in the UK, Japan,Italy and Cameroon?) Dujarric changed the earlier reference to Inner City Press being in a "garage ramp" - something Guterres' Grand Inquisitor Alison Smale never asked Inner City Press about - to being in the "parking lot." (Inner City Press' pass worked to get there, many use it as a way to exit, and several senior UN official, anti-Guterres sources of Inner City Press ask to meet it and give it documents there. Maybe that's the reason.) Dujarric then said that Inner City Press creates a "hostile environment" for the diplomats, some times correspondents and always UN officials it covers. Seems clear the ban is entirely about freedom of the Press, freedom to question, and a Secretary General and vindictive team of holdovers who seek to retaliate against questions and coverage, including live streamed covering, with a lifetime ban with no appeal. Here is an example of Inner City Press' August 28 questioning at the Delegates Entrance, since Guterres and Alison Smale have banned it from the Security Council stakeout. Is this hostile? Would Guterres, former NYT bureau chief Smale and former former Dujarric like to write Inner City Press' questions? Its articles? Perhaps to omit all refernce to Cameroon and what Guterres did and didn't do?
