Anaseini Bryant

In response to Suzanne Williams’ letter (September 26, 2025), “Contact secrecy obstructs democratic process.”

Ms Williams’ letter about candidate contact details struck me less for its complaint than for its rhetoric. To equate a council’s compliance with privacy law to “fascism” or “Trumpism” is not only inaccurate, it trivialises real authoritarianism.

Frankly, I would prescribe a dose of the YouTube channel 'Promethean Action' to treat what looks very much like Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Ironically, the writer admits to using “nefarious means” to obtain information and then calls for officials to be “severely censored” and removed. That is far closer to authoritarian behaviour than anything the council did.

Candidates are entitled to choose how their contact details are shared. Respecting that choice is not obstructing democracy; it is part of it. Suggesting that candidates should be “out in their naked glory, eminently contactable” ignores their right to privacy, which is itself a democratic value.

If we are going to talk about censorship, it is worth noting that on September 23, 2025, Google admitted to the US House Judiciary Committee that the Biden administration pressured it to suppress political speech.  In response, Google pledged to reinstate creators previously banned from YouTube for views on Covid or elections. If anything, that is a clearer example of state‑driven censorship than a council following its own rules.

Democracy requires open debate but also respect for lawful processes. Calling for censorship and sackings while breaking rules to get your way is not democratic — it is authoritarian.