France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
France Is About To Outlaw Criticism Of Israel
Protesters hold a banner reading “Supporting Palestine is not a crime” and “Stop genocide in Gaza” at a rally against the Yadan bill, in Paris on 12 April 2026.
The Dissident | April 13, 2026
A bill that the French National Assembly will vote on, on April 16th and 17th, effectively outlaws criticism of Israel, making it a criminal offence to question Israel’s “right” to exist as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state on occupied Palestinian land, compare Israel’s conduct to the Nazis, or support armed resistance against Israeli occupation and aggression.
The bill writes, “Today, anti-Jew hatred in our country feeds on obsessive hatred towards Israel, regularly delegitimized in its existence and criminalized. This phenomenon is exacerbated by extreme spirits who, under the pretext of expressing their hatred towards a State, are the instigators of a reinvented anti-Semitism, which could be described as ‘geopolitics’.”
The bill seeks to criminalize critics of Israel and paint them as terrorists, writing that the “call for the destruction of Israel and its comparison to a Nazi regime – are rooted in consciences with impunity, taking up the rhetoric of movements recognized as terrorist such as Hamas or Hezbollah.”
The bill seeks to criminalize:
- “Public remarks presenting acts of terrorism as legitimate resistance” (ie support for armed resistance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza or occupation of Lebanon).
- “Causing the destruction or denial of a State or publicly advocating its destruction or denial” (i.e., questioning Israel as a Jewish apartheid state, including calls for a single democratic state in historic Palestine with equal rights).
- “to clarify and extend the crime of challenging the Shoah, by enshrining several essential contributions of case law” adding “the comparison of the State of Israel to the Nazi regime would therefore be sanctioned as an outrageous trivialization of the Shoah” (i.e. factually pointing out that the state of Israel is behaving like the Nazis, including by committing Genocide in Gaza, as the UN independent international commission found in September of last year, and by calling for an expansionist greater Israel and ethnic cleansing to establish Jewish settlements ,similar to the Nazi concept of Lebensraum, an idea that has been openly endorsed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his main political opponent Yair Lapid).
Analyst Arnaud Bertrand documented that the bill attempts to make the criminalization of speech as broad as possible.
He noted that “Article 1 introduces the concept of ‘implicit’ provocation to terrorism and punishes it with five years imprisonment and a fine of €75,000,” adding, “What does ‘implicit provocation to terrorism’ mean? Nobody knows. And that’s the point. It means whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean: a perfectly good case could be made that, for instance, quoting international law on the right of occupied peoples to resist with respect to Hamas is, in fact, ‘implicit provocation to terrorism.’”
He added that “The same article also expands the terrorism apology offense to include ‘minimizing or trivializing acts of terrorism in an outrageous manner’” adding that “a judge could decide that providing context, explaining root causes, or insufficiently condemning an act amounts to ‘trivializing’ terrorism”, “for instance, a history teacher explaining the origins of Hamas or Hezbollah is providing context – but a prosecutor could argue that contextualization is trivialization. The same reasoning could apply to a journalist, a researcher, or anyone on social media who says ‘yes, it was terrible, but here’s why it happened.’ The ‘but’ becomes a crime, as it is trivialization.”
He also noted that, “ if you advocate for a one-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live as equals, you are de-facto calling for the ‘destruction’ of the state of Israel. Well, that would now be punishable by 5 years in prison”.
The bill is called “the Yadan Law” because its creation was headed by National Assembly deputy Caroline Yadan, who represents the “French legislative constituency for citizens abroad” where “Israel has the largest number of voters in the constituency, with over 50,000 registered French voters”.
JNS noted that, “Yadan was elected to parliament as a representative of Renaissance but downgraded her ties to the party, switching to an independent affiliated lawmaker in September following the Macron administration’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state.”
In other words, the bill was brought by a Zionist French politician whose main constituency are Israelis.
Arnaud Bertrand noted, “The U.S. has congressmen paid by AIPAC: France has cut out the middleman entirely, we have MPs whose constituency is literally in Israel.”
Caroline Yadan is a genocide denier who has written, “The term genocide corresponds neither to the rights nor to the facts, nor to the intentions of the war in Gaza.”
Referring to the bill, the former French anti-terrorism judge Marc Trevidic said, “I’d never seen anything like it, the notion of implicit incitement to terrorism. Can you imagine what that means? A censor of other people’s thoughts, trying to figure out what a person meant”.
There is no doubt that this bill is designed to silence criticism of Israel, and that the lawmaker behind it is pushing it forward on behalf of her Israeli constituents.
Brussels cannot say where its own pipeline inspectors are as Hungary’s oil lifeline remains shut
Will they magically reappear after the election?
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | April 10, 2026
With just days until Hungary’s parliamentary election, questions are mounting over whether the European Union’s apparent inaction on a stalled oil pipeline investigation is politically motivated to avoid strengthening Viktor Orbán.
The controversy centers on the Druzhba, or “Friendship,” pipeline, which has not delivered Russian oil to Hungary since the end of January. Ukrainian authorities insisted that the halt was caused by Russian attacks damaging the infrastructure, but initially refused to grant access to inspection teams from both Hungary and the European Union.
The European Commission eventually announced its intention to deploy a team to the region to inspect the pipeline, in part due to Hungary’s refusal to sign off on any further financial assistance to Kyiv until the matter was resolved. However, no updates on the inspection have been forthcoming, and Brussels itself now appears unable to account for the status — or even the whereabouts — of its own delegation.
Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, European Commission spokesperson Anna-Kaisa Itkonen confirmed that a small EU expert team had been deployed to Ukraine following correspondence between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. However, she admitted she could provide no update on the mission’s progress.
“I cannot provide any new information on developments since that exchange of letters,” Itkonen said, adding that she had no details about the team’s itinerary or current location.
“At the time of sending the letter, they were in Ukraine. At that time, we indicated to Volodymyr Zelensky that we were ready and willing to launch such a fact-finding mission, but at present, I have no information about the team’s whereabouts or where exactly they might be,” she added.
The lack of clarity has persisted for weeks. The European Commission first announced on March 12 that it was ready to dispatch a fact-finding mission to assess damage to the pipeline and determine repair timelines and costs. Yet, according to sources in Brussels and Kyiv, EU experts have still not been granted permission to inspect the affected section.
Reports from Ukrainian media at the end of March suggested the team was prepared to travel but remained blocked by authorities who had yet to approve access.
The episode has drawn criticism from Hungarian officials, who say the situation is wholly unacceptable. Máté Kocsis, leader of the Fidesz parliamentary group, mocked the situation, saying it was “absurd” that the EU could not say where its own delegation was, adding sarcastically, “A delegation simply disappeared. This happens to anyone in Ukraine,” as cited by Magyar Nemzet.
The pipeline dispute has become a central issue in Hungary’s election campaign. Orbán’s government argues that Kyiv is deliberately withholding oil supplies to damage Hungary’s economy ahead of the vote, while also accusing Brussels of failing to intervene.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has gone further, describing the shutdown as “a purely political decision,” and accusing Ukraine of refusing to engage in talks to resolve the situation. A planned trilateral meeting with Slovak and Ukrainian officials collapsed after Kyiv declined to attend, despite Hungarian efforts to organize negotiations in recent weeks.
The Hungarian government has also alleged broader coordination between European and Ukrainian actors aimed at harming the current administration’s chances in Sunday’s election. Viktor Orbán has accused Brussels of seeking to install its own “puppet” in the shape of opposition leader Péter Magyar. Governing Fidesz claims that Magyar will be subservient to Brussels on major issues, including further military and financial assistance to Kyiv and the controversial EU Migration Pact.
As the election approaches, the unresolved pipeline issue — and the EU’s lack of visible progress in investigating it — has intensified scrutiny of Brussels’ intentions. Whether the radio silence is bureaucratic inertia or a calculated effort to depose the government, the impact it is having on the election is undeniable.
Trump Administration Moves To Automate U.S. Military Draft Registration
A dark omen that peace is not what lies ahead
blueapples on X | April 9, 2026
Although the Trump administration has framed the war it has waged against Iran as a decisive victory saving the American people from an inevitable nuclear apocalypse, that unconvincing narrative does little to shield from the reality that the biggest loser in the conflict is the reputation of the administration itself. While Trump built the campaign that led him back to the White House upon a platform of refusing to drag the country into any new conflicts like the endless cycle of regime change wars in the Middle East that has haunted the United States since the dawn of the new millennium, that promise has been completely broken little more than a year into his second term in the Oval Office. Any optimism that the administration will emerge in the image of the pro-peace ticket voters elected is bleak, as the two-week ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and Iran de-escalating the latest episode of the return to a neoconservative foreign policy already hangs on a knife’s edge, making a resumption of the conflict seem little more than an inevitability. The pessimism that more war lies ahead have been amplified by a new policy being advanced by the Trump administration that forecasts an even more bellicose future for the country, as the Selective Service System (”SSS”) has begun to take measures to automatically register eligible men for a potential military draft that could be enacted to quench the bloodthirst of the warmongers who have once again taken control of America’s foreign policy.
Starting in December 2026, men between 18 and 25 years old will be automatically registered into the U.S. military draft pool. This requirement went into effect on December 18th, 2025, when President Trump signed the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (”NDAA”) into law. A proposed rule submitted by the SSS to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on March 30th has initiated the implementation of the technical infrastructure necessary to transfer registration for the draft from eligible individuals to an automated process that will integrate disparate federal data systems. All male U.S. citizens from 18 to 25 years old continue to be required by federal law to register with the SSS within 30 days of their 18th birthday until the automated system goes into effect in December 2026. Young men failing to register for the draft pool are in violation of the Military Selective Service Act (“MSSA”) and face penalties including ineligibility for federal programs and a fine of up to $250,000 or five years imprisonment.
The SSS lists that automatic registration system as the first of the three strategic initiatives it aims to achieve in order to reshape the agency and increase the draft pool over the next five years. The second and third of those initiatives are the technological modernization and workforce optimization of the agency, each of which it frames as imperative to facilitate automatic draft registration. The newly automated draft registration system will integrate data from various state and federal databases, including the Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and nationwide Department of Motor Vehicles registries, to register eligible individuals.
Automating registration into the draft pool has long been a goal of the SSS, which it began making headway during the drafting of the Fiscal Year 2025 NDAA in 2024 when the agency began to enhance its efforts to work with Congress to achieve that mission. The impetus of that increased initiative followed a decline in voluntary registrations, which began decreasing significantly in 2022 when the option to register for the draft was removed from federal student loan forms. That option had previously accounted for nearly one quarter of all previous registrations.
The SSS was established under the Selective Service Act (”SSA”) in 1917 by President Woodrow Wilson following the U.S. entry into the First World War, marking the first modern military draft in the country’s history. Opposition to conscription into the U.S. military to fight WWI was quickly suppressed, culminating in the landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (”SCOTUS”) in the case of Schenck v. United States, which ruled that criticism of the draft was not protected by the free speech protection under the First Amendment. In a unanimous decision from the SCOTUS, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously coined the term “clear and present danger” to characterize how speech designed to oppose the draft created an imminent threat to national security. The court upheld the application of Section 3 of the Espionage Act of 1917 that the defendants were charged with violating. Long considered to be one of the worst rulings in the SCOTUS’ history, the precedent set by Schenck became void when the case was overturned in 1969 following the decision in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which deemed that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Since the U.S. implemented conscription under President Wilson, the SCOTUS has heard several challenges to its constitutionality. In 1918, the court immediately upheld the constitutionality of the SSA after deciding the Selective Service Draft Law Cases united under the matter of Arver v. United States. The court rejected the argument that the military draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude and the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of conscience. The constitutionality of a male-only draft has also been challenged on the basis it violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. That argument was also rejected by the SCOTUS in the case of Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981. While opponents of the draft who continue to conceptualize arguments that only requiring men to register for the military draft violates the equal protection provisions under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution are optimistic that the changing attitudes of the court toward a more liberal jurisprudence offer some hope in striking the draft down, caselaw since the decision of Schenck demonstrates the SCOTUS’ unwavering support to uphold it.
Six years after Schenck was overturned by Brandenburg, President Gerald Ford suspended the draft in 1975 in response to the fallout from the Vietnam War, which shifted the paradigm on how U.S. citizens perceived the bellicosity of their federal government. Although President Jimmy Carter reinstated the draft just five years later in 1980 after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the U.S. hasn’t implemented a military draft since 1973 during the Vietnam War. Currently, 17 million men between the ages of 18 and 25 years old are eligible for the draft pool. In 2024, registration rates dropped to as low as 81%. The Trump administration hopes to increase that rate to as close to 100% as possible by enabling the SSS to automate the draft registration process. While the administration has undertaken increased efforts to streamline the draft process, reactivation of the draft is not vested in the authority of the Executive Branch alone. Congress would have to amend the MSSA first in order for President Trump to exercise that authority.
The implementation of an automated draft registration process is the latest troubling sign of enhanced militarism from the Trump administration. In late March 2026, the U.S. Army increased its maximum enlistment age to 42, a significant increase from the previous limit of 35. The army had previously increased its maximum enlistment to 42 temporarily in 2006 as it struggled to fill its ranks during the height of the War on Terror. Despite President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth constantly boasting about how military recruitment is at record highs, the increased enlistment age of the Army indicates the administration seeks to further supplement its ranks nevertheless. The decision to automate the draft registration process beckons the question of how it intends to do so.
When White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt spoke on the prospect of the U.S. reactivating the military draft during the onset of the war with Iran, she stated that while it was not part of the current calculus of the administration, she refused to rule out the possibility, saying that President Trump “keeps his options on the table.” That rhetoric, combined with decisions to automate the military draft registration and increase the age of those eligible to enlist in the U.S. army, stands as an ominous omen that peace will not be what defines the legacy of the Trump presidency.
How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech
A UK regulator bypassed every formal legal treaty and just emailed American companies into compliance, 98% of them apparently obliged
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | April 9, 2026
A Freedom of Information response has confirmed what the UK’s speech regulator would probably have preferred to keep quiet. Ofcom fired off 197 information demands to American tech companies under the Online Safety Act, and not a single one went through the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, the formal diplomatic process that exists for exactly this kind of cross-border legal enforcement. Every one of those 197 notices was sent directly, by email or post, to companies operating entirely on American soil.
The number comes from a FOI request filed by Daniel Lü, who asked Ofcom a series of pointed questions about how it enforces the Online Safety Act against non-UK targets.
Ofcom confirmed that as of February 26, 2026, it had issued 197 Section 100 notices to US businesses. Zero through MLAT. The treaty between the US and UK that governs how one country’s legal process gets enforced in the other’s jurisdiction was treated as optional. Ofcom decided it didn’t apply.
That admission drew an immediate response from Preston Byrne, the American lawyer who represents 4chan and other US companies targeted by Ofcom.
Byrne called the 197 notices a “breathtaking” “attack on the First Amendment” and pointed out the uncomfortable math.
Only two US companies, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, have publicly refused to comply with Ofcom’s demands. If Byrne’s assessment is right, that leaves Ofcom enjoying “a 98% compliance rate with foreign censorship orders that violate the First Amendment.”
A British regulator sent nearly 200 demands to American companies, bypassed every established legal channel, and almost all of them appear to have simply done what they were told. The chilling effect is already here.
Ofcom Uses Free Speech to Hide Its Censorship Methods
Lü did more than ask for the number of notices. He asked for policy documents about how Ofcom selects its foreign enforcement targets, what guidance it gives its teams about the legality of emailing criminal penalty warnings to US corporations, and whether Ofcom has any internal guidance on protected speech.
Ofcom admitted it holds much of that information. Then it refused to hand it over. The reason, cited directly from the FOI Act, was that disclosure “would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation; and/or would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.”
A speech regulator is claiming that transparency about its censorship operations would damage free and frank deliberation. Ofcom is borrowing the language of free expression to shield itself from accountability over how it suppresses expression. The irony is so complete it feels deliberate.
On the question of whether Ofcom holds any guidance on protected speech, the answer was even more revealing. Ofcom said it doesn’t have any. No internal documents addressing what speech is protected when it exercises its enforcement powers against foreign companies.
It pointed instead to its general obligations under the Online Safety Act, the Communications Act 2003, and the European Convention on Human Rights, along with links to already-public guidance documents. That’s the speech protection regime for companies being censored by the UK from American soil: a few hyperlinks to existing publications.
The MLAT Problem Isn’t New. It’s Getting Worse.
The treaty issue is central. MLAT exists so that when one country wants to enforce its laws against people or companies in another country, there’s a formal process involving both governments. For the US side, that means routing through the Department of Justice. A judge gets involved. There’s oversight. There are procedural protections.
Ofcom has previously argued it doesn’t need to use MLAT because its Section 100 notices are administrative, not criminal. That distinction might satisfy Ofcom’s lawyers in London, but it doesn’t satisfy anyone else. Byrne and his clients have argued in federal court that Ofcom’s demands have no legal force precisely because they skipped the treaty process. 4chan and Kiwi Farms received their enforcement demands by email, sent to addresses that in some cases weren’t even authorized to accept legal service.
The Lü FOI also asked whether Ofcom holds any correspondence with the US Department of Justice or the FBI about its enforcement activity. Ofcom’s response: it holds no information related to this question. The regulator didn’t talk to anyone in the US government before firing off 197 demands to US companies. It just hit send.
What the FOI Actually Revealed, and What Ofcom Hid
Lü’s request covered six questions. The pattern in Ofcom’s responses tells its own story. On the questions where Ofcom could respond by linking to documents that are already public, it was happy to share. On everything else, it cited exemptions, claimed it didn’t hold the information, or both.
When asked for policy documents about enforcing the OSA against non-UK providers, including any records discussing MLAT, Ofcom said it holds some information but won’t release it. It also claimed it holds no records of MLAT discussions or legal guidance about whether emailing criminal penalty warnings to American corporations is valid. Either Ofcom never considered whether its enforcement method was legal under international law, or it did consider it and doesn’t want anyone to see that analysis.
When asked how it selects non-UK enforcement targets, Ofcom cited exemptions under the Communications Act 2003 and linked to its public enforcement guidance, plus its own decisions against 4chan and other US entities. The internal criteria, the actual decision-making process for choosing which American companies to go after, stayed hidden.
When asked about its approach to “qualifying worldwide revenue,” the basis for calculating fines that can reach £18 million or 10% of global revenue, Ofcom linked to its public guidance explaining that companies are expected to self-report their revenue to Ofcom. Companies that Ofcom is threatening with fines are supposed to voluntarily tell Ofcom how much money they make, so that Ofcom can calculate a bigger fine. The compliance incentives here are about as perverse as they get.
Byrne Goes to Congress
Byrne said he forwarded Ofcom’s admission directly to the US government. He tagged US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, Senator Eric Schmitt, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, and called on Congress to act. This is consistent with Byrne’s approach throughout the Ofcom fight. He has previously said he copies the US government on Ofcom correspondence that crosses his desk.
The legal strategy from the US side has been to deny Ofcom any clean precedent. The four companies that received formal enforcement action, 4chan, Kiwi Farms, a mental health forum called SaSu, and the social network Gab, all refused to comply. 4chan responded to one of Ofcom’s fines with a picture of a hamster. The point was to make Ofcom’s orders publicly and visibly unenforceable on American soil, turning each attempted punishment into a political liability for the regulator rather than a deterrent for the rest of the American internet.
But the 197 number changes the scale of the problem. Those four companies were the public-facing enforcement targets, the ones Ofcom wanted to make examples of. Behind them, 193 other US companies apparently received quieter demands and, if Byrne’s analysis is correct, most of them complied without a fight. Without lawyers, without publicity, without anyone in Congress knowing it happened.
Byrne has pushed the GRANITE Act, a proposed law that would allow US entities to sue foreign governments for censorship attempts and void foreign censorship orders in US courts. Sarah Rogers, the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, has appeared on GB News in London suggesting Congress is considering a federal version of the law. The Trump administration has made public statements objecting to the Online Safety Act. The US State Department sent diplomats to London in 2025 to challenge Ofcom directly.
Whether all of that translates into legislation remains an open question. Ofcom, for its part, has already moved on to bigger targets. After spending a year trying to fine platforms like 4chan and getting nowhere, the regulator recently opened new investigations into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Roblox, and X. The small companies held the line. The question now is whether the large ones will too, or whether they’ll decide that complying with a foreign regulator’s censorship demands is easier than asserting their constitutional rights.
Alberta Bill Would Fine Political Deepfakes $10,000 Without Satire Exemptions
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | April 7, 2026
Alberta’s government wants the power to fine people $10,000 for creating a political deepfake. The bill makes no distinction between a fake video designed to suppress votes and a satirical meme poking fun at the premier.
Justice Minister Mickey Amery tabled Bill 23, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, on March 30.
The legislation would prohibit individuals and entities from creating or distributing deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the conduct or statements of a party leader, minister, leadership or nomination contestant, MLA candidate, the chief electoral officer, the election commissioner, Elections Alberta employees or election officers.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
The ban’s reach is notable for what it doesn’t say. There is no carve-out for satire, no exemption for parody, no protection for political memes. A deepfake clearly labelled as humor could still be prosecuted if someone, somewhere, decided it was “likely to mislead voters” about a politician’s statements. Who decides what’s likely to mislead? The election commissioner, the same office empowered by the bill to issue directions to stop the creation, distribution, or publication of content it deems in violation.
Officials said the prohibition would apply at all times, not only during the election cycle. The ban operates year-round, every year, regardless of whether Albertans are anywhere near a ballot box. It applies to content about sitting politicians even when no one is voting.
“We know that deepfake technology is going to continue to improve, and the distinction between what is reality and what is fake is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish,” Amery said.
Alberta’s bill takes a different approach. Rather than relying on existing fraud and election interference laws to prosecute genuine bad actors, it creates a broad new category of banned speech and gives a government appointee the power to enforce it.
“Bill 23 ensures that our elections will remain fair and honest,” Amery said. “This is why Bill 23 will prohibit the creation and distribution of deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the statements or conduct of a candidate. Public confidence is essential to a healthy democracy.”
The phrase “likely to mislead” is where the real power sits. A deepfake of a premier singing a ridiculous song, obviously fake to any viewer, could technically be argued to mislead someone about the premier’s “conduct.” A satirical clip of a justice minister saying something absurd could be classified as a misleading depiction of their “statements.” The legislation provides no guidance on how to distinguish a genuine attempt at voter suppression from a political joke that happens to use AI-generated media.
Those who violate the rules face fines of up to $10,000, and entities up to $100,000. Additional fines could be imposed for each day of non-compliance. Those are serious penalties for speech that may well be constitutionally protected under the Canadian Charter. The chilling effect is predictable. An Alberta resident thinking about making a satirical AI video about their MLA now has a strong incentive to not bother. The government doesn’t need to prosecute anyone for the law to work exactly as a speech restriction always works, by making people think twice before they speak.
The bill also happens to be buried inside a much larger piece of legislation that quietly reshapes how Albertans can challenge their own government. Bill 23 would create a 12-month blackout period before and after provincial elections for starting or continuing a citizen initiative petition. It would also repeal deadlines for the government to call a referendum for any future successful policy or constitutional petition. A citizen petition that gathers enough signatures no longer comes with any deadline for the government to actually act on it. A petition delayed long enough is a petition that never matters.
Alberta already has laws against fraud and election interference. The question is whether a province needs a new law that bans a broad category of political expression, with vague definitions and no protections for satire or parody, enforced by fines that would bankrupt most individuals.
Opposition parties have indicated tentative support for the bill, which is unsurprising.
The deepfake provisions will probably pass. They’ll sit on the books alongside the citizen petition restrictions, the removed referendum deadlines, and the expanded government oversight of the signature verification process. Bill 23 gives the Alberta government more tools to control what citizens say about their politicians and fewer obligations to respond when citizens try to hold those politicians accountable.
Germany seeks to restrict stays abroad for men of fighting age – Berliner Zeitung
RT | April 7, 2026
German men who remain abroad for more than three months without prior approval may start facing penalties under a military-related legal requirement, according to the Berliner Zeitung.
The rule obliges men of fighting age, between the ages of 17 and 45, to obtain permission before extended stays abroad. It came into force on January 1, 2026, but April is when the first three-month period expires and enforcement may begin, the outlet has said.
Germany is in the process of a massive military buildup, with plans to spend reportedly more than €500 billion (around $580 billion) on defense by 2029. German officials have set 2029 as the deadline for the armed forces to be “war-ready” for a potential conflict with Russia.
Moscow has repeatedly denied any plans to attack NATO as “nonsense” and ridiculed Western politicians over such claims. In February Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Russia had “no reason” to attack the EU or NATO unless attacked first.
The new requirement, which was introduced under the Military Service Modernization Act and reportedly largely went unnoticed, previously applied only during a “state of tension” or a “state of defense,” defined as situations of heightened external threat or armed attack. Since the amendment took effect, it now applies at all times, including in peacetime. The Defense Ministry said the measure is intended to maintain a reliable registry of individuals eligible for military service.
Several EU states, including Germany, have recently moved to reintroduce conscription. The German government has said the armed forces should grow from around 180,000 active soldiers to more than 260,000 by 2035.
Students staged protests in late March in German cities against Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s plans to expand military service. Demonstrators accused the government of preparing forced mobilization, with some chanting that “Merz should go to the front himself and risk his own life.”
The new rules faced criticism from the MPs in the Bundestag, with the Green Party’s security policy spokeswoman, Sara Nanni, telling Die Welt on Sunday that “citizens have a right to know quickly whether they are required to report, and if so, what their reporting obligations are.”
When addressed about the backlash by Politico on Tuesday, a spokesman for the German Defense Ministry said that it “is currently developing detailed provisions to allow for exemptions from the approval requirement, also with a view to avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.”
According to the ministry, approvals to leave the country are expected to be issued in all cases as long as military service remains voluntary in Germany.
Bahrain faces scrutiny for opposition crackdown after detainee killed
Al Mayadeen | April 3, 2026
A Bahraini man detained during last month’s missile strikes on the kingdom has died in custody under contested circumstances, sparking renewed scrutiny of the country’s security practices amid wartime tensions.
Mohammad al-Mousawi, a Bahraini national who was detained as Bahrain came under attack from Iran, disappeared for several days before his family was contacted and asked to retrieve his body from a military hospital, relatives said. They reported that his body bore multiple injuries, including slash marks, bruising, and wounds on the soles of his feet.
His death has quickly become a flashpoint in the country, with critics accusing authorities of reverting to tactics used to suppress protests during the 2011 uprising.
Bahrain, which hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, has detained dozens of individuals since the outbreak of the war, including people accused of:
- filming strikes and demonstrations,
- expressing support for Iran against US-Israeli aggression
- alleged espionage.
“They want to make sure nobody challenges the state’s narrative and silence any voices not telling the story of the war how they want it to be told,” said Sayed Ahmed al-Wadaei of the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, a London-based advocacy group.
Bahraini Interior Ministry dismisses clear evidence
The Interior Ministry claimed al-Mousawi had been arrested on suspicion of spying for Iran, an allegation his family denies. Authorities also dismissed circulating images of his injuries as “inaccurate and misleading,” while insisting that the country is acting to protect national security.
In a statement, the government rejected accusations of sectarian discrimination, saying all actions were carried out in accordance with the law and that independent bodies are responsible for investigating claims of abuse.
Al-Mousawi had previously spent around 11 years in prison as part of a 21-year sentence on charges widely regarded as false, including accusations of arson and alleged membership in a “terrorist cell”. His family and rights groups have clarified that these charges are false and fabricated.
Severe abuse evident on al-Mousawi, Bahrain denies the obvious
A relative and a close family friend said Mohammad al-Mousawi disappeared on March 19 after attending prayers with two companions who also remain missing. Both spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, citing fears of reprisals. Rights groups have long accused Bahraini authorities of carrying out enforced disappearances.
On March 27, the family said they were called to collect his body. A relative who viewed it at the morgue reported signs of severe abuse, including injuries consistent with whipping using cables, as well as apparent electrocution and cigarette burns.
The Associated Press reviewed images of the body that showed marks consistent with accounts from five witnesses who said they saw it in person, all speaking anonymously. Bahrain’s Interior Ministry said al-Mousawi had been held by the National Security Agency, whose arrest powers were restored in 2017 after being revoked following the 2011 unrest.
The Ministry dismissed the images as “inaccurate and misleading,” while a military hospital attributed the death to a heart attack. His family said he had no known preexisting conditions. Ahmed Banasr of Physicians for Human Rights said the injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma, noting that wounds on the soles of the feet suggested abuse rather than a fall or fight.
Bahrain’s long record of repression, violence seeps into al-Mousawi’s case
Human rights organizations say the detention and death of Mohammad al-Mousawi mark a new phase in Bahrain’s long-running crackdown on opposition, which peaked during the 2011 protests. That year, the ruling Al Khalifa family suppressed mass demonstrations with support from Saudi and Emirati forces.
“It remains to be seen how far the government will go in its crackdown on people,” said exiled Bahraini activist Maryam al-Khawaja, whose father is imprisoned in Bahrain. “What we are witnessing now is certainly far more severe than in recent years,” she added.
Since the start of the war on Iran, at least 41 people, including migrant workers, have been arrested on accusations of publishing images of Iranian strikes. Some face charges of “treason”, which can carry penalties ranging from life imprisonment to the death penalty. In one case, 21-year-old Hussein Futeil and a friend were detained after posting videos of themselves waving a portrait of Iranian leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei during a protest outside the US Embassy.
According to his father, Naji Futeil, the two briefly reappeared after hours of questioning before Hussein later informed his family he faced five charges, including misuse of social media, incitement of hatred, and treason. Rights advocates say the cases reflect a broader effort to silence opposition, with Sayyed Ahmed al-Wadaei stating authorities aim to ensure no one challenges the state’s narrative.
UK’s New Pandemic Plan Would Turn Big Tech Into a Mass Location Tracking Network
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | March 30, 2026
Britain’s new £1 billion ($1.3m) pandemic strategy treats a future outbreak as a “certainty” and proposes building a contact tracing system that would feed on real-time location data harvested with the help of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies.
The plan, published by the Department of Health and Social Care, also calls for PPE stockpiles, new emergency legislation, and a biosecurity research hub in Essex.
But the centerpiece that deserves the most scrutiny is the contact tracing proposal, which would create a surveillance architecture designed to track the movements of millions of people, ready to switch on at a moment’s notice.
The UKHSA will run the new system, which the strategy document says will use “live location data” and artificial intelligence to provide “a more rapid, large-scale detection and alert system during pandemics.”
The agency plans to “explore options to work with ‘big tech’” to build it, with deployment targeted for 2030. The government is pre-building a location surveillance system in partnership with companies whose entire business model depends on harvesting as much personal data as possible.
The strategy doesn’t name which companies, what data-sharing agreements would look like, or what happens to your location history once the pandemic ends.
The UK government has already tracked its own citizens through their phones without telling them. A 2021 report by the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviors (SPI-B) revealed that government-funded researchers tracked one in ten people in Britain via their mobile phones in February of that year, without the users’ knowledge or permission.
Researchers used cell phone mobility data to select over 4,200 vaccinated individuals, then monitored them through 40 call data records with corresponding location observations. The data was used for behavioral analysis, tracking radius of movement on vaccination day, whether people visited businesses during opening hours, and whether they went straight home afterwards. None of this was made public at the time.
When the tracking came to light, a spokesperson for Big Brother Watch said citizens would be “disturbed to discover they were unwittingly tracked and subjected to behavioral analysis via their phones.”
“No one expects that by going to get a vaccine they will be tracked and monitored by their own Government,” the spokesperson said. “This is deeply chilling and could be extremely damaging to public trust in medical confidentiality. Between looming Covid passports and vaccine phone surveillance, this Government is turning Britain into a Big Brother state under the cover of Covid. This should be a wake up call to us all.”
The government’s defense was that the data was collected at cell tower level, not the individual level, and that it was “GDPR-compliant” data provided by a company that “collected, cleaned, and anonymized” it.
A government spokesperson said “the mobile phone location data used is GDPR-compliant and has been provided from a company that collected, cleaned, and anonymized the data” and that “the data is at cell tower rather than individual level and the researchers were granted access to the dataset under a research contract with ethical approval provided to the researchers from the University of Oxford, working on behalf of SPI-B.”
That defense tells you everything about how the government thinks about location surveillance. It tracked millions of people and called it ethical because a private company “anonymized” the data first. It monitored the movements of vaccinated individuals and called it acceptable because the tracking happened at cell tower resolution rather than GPS precision. The distinction between “cell tower level” and “individual surveillance” is thinner than the government wants you to believe.
Cell tower data can still reveal where you live, where you work, and what you do on a given day, especially when cross-referenced with other datasets. The fact that a private company sat between the government and the raw data doesn’t change what happened: people went to get vaccinated, and their government secretly tracked where they went afterwards.
That history makes the new strategy’s contact tracing plans look less like pandemic preparedness and more like the next step in normalizing population-level location surveillance.
The 2021 tracking was done covertly, without legislation, using data purchased from a private company. The new strategy proposes formalizing this kind of capability, building it into permanent government systems, and enlisting “big tech” to run it at scale. What was done secretly during Covid is now being written into official policy.
During the pandemic, the UK’s first attempt at a centralized contact tracing app collapsed under its own privacy problems. The government’s original NHSX app tried to store user data on a central server, a design so invasive that Apple and Google refused to let it run properly on their operating systems.
FTC Warns Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Stripe Over Political Debanking
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | March 29, 2026
Four companies that collectively control how most Americans buy and sell things received warning letters this week from FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, threatening enforcement action if they deny customers access to financial services based on political or religious beliefs. The targets are Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and Stripe.
The letters didn’t name a single specific violation, and they didn’t need to. The track record is already public. PayPal has frozen accounts of several political commentators.
Stripe cut off payment processing for President Trump’s campaign website after January 6, 2021. Both companies have spent years making unilateral decisions about who deserves access to the financial system, hiding behind vague terms of service that give compliance teams almost unlimited discretion.
“Full participation in commerce and public life necessarily requires that law-abiding individuals can access, and freely participate in, our financial system,” Chairman Ferguson wrote.
“It is inconsistent with American values to deny law-abiding individuals the ability to run their legitimate businesses and feed their families because they attracted the ire of rogue American officials, overzealous activists, or, more worryingly, foreign governments seeking to control public discourse,” he continued.
“That is why President Trump’s August 7, 2025, Executive Order on debanking makes clear that it is unacceptable to debank law-abiding citizens due to ‘political affiliations, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities.’”
Ferguson’s letters lean on Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”
The logic is that if your terms promise equal access and you cut someone off for their politics, that’s deceptive. “As an American citizen, I abhor and condemn any efforts to debank or otherwise deny law-abiding consumers access,” Ferguson wrote, citing Trump’s August 2025 executive order on debanking.
He told Visa and Mastercard they’re responsible not just for their own conduct but for member banks on their networks. “Equally concerning is the conduct of payments providers and payment networks that turn a blind eye when their financial institution members debank consumers for these reasons,” he wrote.
PayPal declined to comment. Visa and Mastercard didn’t respond. Only Stripe pushed back: “At Stripe, we do not restrict access to our services based on political viewpoints or affiliation.”
Ferguson’s letters describe payment services as “essential for Americans’ participation in everyday commerce, and, directly or indirectly, for the exercise of core rights and freedoms.” It treats access to payment infrastructure not as a privilege companies can revoke at will, but as something closer to a necessity.
The real question is whether letters become action. The FTC opened no investigations and announced no penalties.
Battle for Hungary: EU attacks on Orban are a sign of worse things to come
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 28, 2026
About a century ago – between those two World Wars which Europeans have generously given to the history of humanity – there was a joke about Hungary: It was a monarchy without a king and a landlocked country ruled by an admiral. It was funny because it was true.
Nowadays, though, we have proudly advanced. Now, we have a whole European Union, with 27 member states and 450 million people, run by an unelected German who really serves the US and has, a bit like Siegfried or Brunhilde, a special “shield” (about which more below) to protect a “democracy” administered and defined by an non-transparent, privileged, and aloof nomenklatura of equally unelected bureaucrats.
Contemporary Hungary, meanwhile, is, by the sober standards of reality, by no means a perfect but a perfectly normal country, that is, neither better nor worse than most of the rest. No longer a weird monarchy with a gaping hole at the top but a run-of-the-mill Western-style capitalist democracy, it has a feisty prime minister for a leader instead of an admiral without a coast. That prime minister, Viktor Orban, is a typical if especially canny and successful professional politician, who combines a knack for crowd appeal, demagoguery included, with deft political power plays.
It is true, if electoral districts need re-designing in Hungary, the party in power is likely to favor its own chances, just like they do in the EU’s big “daddy” the US, for instance. Likewise, if you are doing business in Hungary, being close to the party – or parties –in power tends to be better for your company. But that’s no different in, again, the US (with the caveat that there the current president and his extensive clan are now taking an extra large cut for themselves). Or, indeed, in Germany and France. The latter, as it happens, has just reached a new low in Transparency International’s annual corruption index.
Hungary may not have unbiased mass media, as its critics indignantly charge. But then, who does? Certainly not Germany, Britain, France, or, for that matter, the US. As a matter of fact, it is the EU and the German authorities which are currently obstinately misusing a sanctions regime designed for foreign policy purposes – and not working, but that’s another matter – to circumvent ordinary legal procedures, trample on civil and human rights, and punitively destroy the existence of individual dissidents and critical journalist.
Hungary’s elections may suffer from that media slant and some sharp administrative practice, too. But that again, is at least equally true of all major states in Europe and of the US as well. Indeed, say what you will about voting under real-existing Orbanism, it has not featured the brutal, EU-driven manipulation we have recently seen in Romania and Moldova.
And there is also nothing comparable in Orban’s Hungary to the extremely suspicious (to say the least) manner in which the last German elections featured a statistically bizarre accumulation of “mistakes” that eliminated the New-Left BSW from parliament.
Since it seems likely that a correct – or clean – result would make Germany’s current ruling coalition impossible, the implications of this case of deeply flawed elections at the very center of the EU are most disturbing: at this point, Germany may have an electorally baseless government, the German parliament’s refusal to permit a clearly necessary recount is either more foul play or indistinguishable from it, and Berlin’s political course – domestically and abroad – would be principally different under a government that would have to rely on the correct election results.
And let’s not even mention minor details, such as that Hungary’s mixed election system (combining first-past-the-post districts and national party lists) is far more representative than that of that “cradle of parliamentary democracy” and police-state-for-Zionism Great Britain.
In view of the above, you would expect, if anything, Budapest going after Brussels as well as some other individual EU member states to demand better democratic behavior. But this is the alternative-reality world of the EU’s sectarian “elite,” where genocidal Israel is only defending itself, “Europe is the values of the Talmud” (perish the thought its history may have a little more to do with first Christian and then Enlightenment ideas), the US is a good and reliable ally, and four white, blonde women serving the same radical Centrism proudly constitute “diversity.”
Hence, in topsy-turvy land, it is, obviously, once again the EU that is charging Hungary with flunking the test of “democracy.” That, in and of itself, might not be important: words are cheap. The problem is that, as before in Romania and even Moldova – not even a member state – the EU Commission has long passed from mere talk, at which it excels, to mean action, which makes everything only worse. Indeed, the EU’s meddling in Hungary has recently escalated.
The catalyst for this escalation is the upcoming Hungarian election. To be held on April 12, domestically, back in Hungary, the outcome will merely decide if Orban can stay in power – which he has been without interruption since 2010 – or will be replaced by the opposition’s new hope, Peter Magyar, a former Orbanist himself. Yet there are good reasons Politico has called these “the EU’s most important elections” this year despite the fact that Hungary is a small country of less than 10 million citizens.
For one thing, Orban is the primus inter pares of a group of very inconvenient sovereigntist rebels inside the EU, which also includes Slovakia’s leader Robert Fico, the Czech Republic’s Andrej Babis and, occasionally but with special weight, Bart de Wever from Belgium, which is an EU founding member. Orban’s toppling would not only weaken this loose group of leaders that still remember that they are supposed to serve their countries first but also make for a chilling object lesson in what happens to those frustrating Brussels too much.
Especially, if they resist the Commission party line on three topics: the relationship with Russia, the Western – now entirely EU-financed – proxy war waged against Moscow by means of Ukraine, and, last but not least, money, in particular money to be wasted – or not – on Kiev’s Zelensky regime. In all three areas, Orban has been Brussel’s main irritant, consistently arguing for normalization with Russia through diplomacy, a quick negotiated end to the proxy war, and an end also to the pathological inter-dependence with Zelensky’s ultra-corrupt and extremely dangerous regime.
Recently, this Hungarian resistance has led to repeated clashes with both the EU establishment and Kiev. Zelensky has publicly threatened Orban with violence in the worst Mafia style; Budapest has taken action against extremely suspicious transports of tens of millions of euro and dollars as well as bullion to Kiev; Hungary and Ukraine have been sparring over Kiev’s attempts to block the Druzhba pipeline; Budapest has been blocking yet another massive “loan” (never to be paid back) for Zelensky and his crew, and, most recently, Orban has called on Kiev to immediately withdraw its agents and operatives from Hungary.
And, by the way, you may suspect Orban of seeking an electoral boost. But even if that is the case, it makes no difference to the fact that aggressive subversion is exactly what the Zelensky regime does. Ask the Germans how things with their pipelines went. The braver ones might dare answer.
As we live in modern, online times, the shape much of the escalating EU meddling on the side of Orban’s opponents in Budapest and Kiev has taken is a nasty combination of social media manipulation at scale, illicit surveillance and spying, and the targeted dissemination of what is meant to be compromising information.
A smelly affair features a Hungarian journalist who has produced a source-free report alleging massive Russian interference in the elections, while spending his free time facilitating an EU country’s intelligence service eavesdropping on Hungary’s foreign minister. Some interference indeed. The hypocrisy would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
In Brussels, meanwhile, under the overall umbrella of the “European Democracy Shield” (EDS) initiative and the Digital Services Act (DSA), a so-called Rapid Response mechanism has been activated to – so the official brief tells us – combat disinformation and foreign influence. Yet, in reality, this is a set of compulsory measures that permit the Commission’s dependent auxiliaries to police social media platforms, suppress content in favor of Orban and, thus, promote his rivals.
What makes all of this particularly dreadful is not simply that it is so almost comically Orwellian: The “European Democracy Shield” is really a shield to protect the EU’s unelected bureaucrat rulers and their ideologized technocrats from democracy as a recent report has correctly argued. Its tools, from so-called “fact-checking” to systematic denunciation by “trusted flaggers” to “prebunking” – that is AI-based preventative propaganda campaigns – amount to a box of horrors.
Yet what is even worse is that all of this is only a small part of a much larger and long-term strategy that has been gathering steam for a decade already. The “European Democracy Shield” and the DSA exist in a large, constantly pullulating eco-system of narrative control that also includes, for instance, a “Defense of Democracy Package,” a “European Democracy Action Plan,” and a Digital Markets Act. Attached to this weaponized spearhead for manufacturing Brussels consent is an extensive – and very expensive – train of so-called civil-society organizations and NGOs that provide both censorship assistance and indoctrination.
Hungary, put simply, is a harbinger of more and even worse to come, of what Brussels wants for our future. The EU ‘elites’ are displaying an unbroken will to power over what we are allowed to think, say, and vote for. That is why – whether you like or dislike Viktor Orban – and I heartily dislike him because of his outrageous siding with genocidal Israel – you should certainly greatly dislike and resist the methods that the EU is fielding to stop him. Because they are coming for all of us.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
German journalist threatened with homelessness as German court upholds EU sanctions in landmark free speech case
‘Socio-economic death sentence’
Remix News – March 27, 2026
The Frankfurt am Main District Court in Germany has recently upheld a German bank’s decision to maintain the suspension of accounts belonging to Berlin-based journalist Hüseyin Doğru, who is known for his pro-Palestinian news coverage. The ruling rejected an urgent application by the journalist, who is currently facing the threat of homelessness due to EU sanctions. The court’s decision means Dogru remains without the necessary funds for rent or basic daily needs.
The legal battle surrounding Hüseyin Doğru has sparked intense political debate in Germany, with critics describing the case as a “socio-economic death sentence” and a dangerous precedent for press freedom. Certainly, these EU sanctions, which can freeze bank accounts, can be used to effectively target dissident journalists across the EU in the coming years.
According to the German court order, there was no right that would entitle Doğru, who has a Turkish background but also has German citizenship, to continue using his bank account while under sanctions. Berliner Zeitung reported that the judge determined that the situation lacked the “prerequisite for intervention in the urgent procedure” because “Doğru has no enforceable right to have the bank release the transfers it has requested.”
The impact of this ruling on Doğru’s personal life is severe. Expressing his concern for his family’s future, Doğru stated, “The risk of ending up on the streets with three children is a concrete threat.”
The paper notes that his “authorized €506 per month makes it impossible to support a family of five. Moreover, he cannot freely dispose of even that amount. The situation could become existential.”
While German law technically allows for a monthly subsistence allowance — cited in late 2025 as €506 — Doğru’s lawyers have had to repeatedly sue banks just to gain access to this minimum amount. His attorney, Alexander Gorski, described these tactics as a “war of attrition” designed to make social and economic participation “factually impossible.”
He also noted the extreme difficulty of maintaining a normal life under these conditions, remarking that “paying bills is practically impossible for me.”
Doğru has been on an EU sanctions list since May 2025, with Brussels arguing that his pro-Palestinian journalistic work incites “ethnic, political, and religious discord” and therefore, he allegedly supports “destabilizing activities by Russia.” Notably, he filmed a number of the occupations of Berlin universities by pro-Palestinian activists.
Doğru has denied these allegations, pointing out that he ended his previous employment with a Russian-funded outlet following the invasion of Ukraine and has publicly criticized the conflict.
Remix News already covered developments in this story at the end of January of this year.
At the time, Doğru, a left-wing journalist, said: “Not only I, but also my wife and my three children are effectively being sanctioned.”
“The sanctions themselves stipulate that I am entitled to access to essential funds. The fact that my bank is nevertheless blocking these funds violates applicable law in my view,” he continued.
The basis for the sanctions was his alleged connections to Russia, but the Berliner Zeitung indicated that so far, no proof has been presented to confirm this accusation, and more importantly, there was no trial or evidence provided to support this accusation.
“Brussels justifies the measures by saying that he is using his pro-Palestinian journalistic work to stir up ‘ethnic, political and religious discord’ and thus allegedly ‘destabilizing activities that support Russia.’ The EU has not yet publicly provided any concrete evidence of a connection to Moscow,” wrote the paper at the time.
There are now fears that the extraordinary case may be a sign of where the future is headed, where an authoritarian EU can censor and financially ruin dissidents and journalists with no oversight or judicial review. Notably, similar sanctions could also be deployed against others, such as Roger Köppel, the Swiss editor-in-chief of the weekly Die Weltwoche.
In a formal inquiry from the newspaper Junge Welt, the German Ministry of Economic Affairs clarified the severity of the “provision ban.” They stated that a sanctioned individual may receive “no economic benefit whatsoever,” including wages. This interpretation effectively bars any German company from hiring Doğru, as paying him would constitute a criminal offense.
An MP of the left-wing Social Democrats (SPD) Macit Karaahmetoğlu, defended the government’s position in the case and the sanctions, noting it was established to target those undermining “the security, stability, independence and integrity” of the EU. He emphasized that the German government “actively worked to establish and strengthen” this specific regime to counter hybrid threats.
Legal experts and journalists, however, have compared Doğru’s situation to “internal exile.” Since he is a German citizen, he cannot be deported, but the sanctions have stripped him of his identity card and barred him from all forms of employment.
Even friends and family who would like to donate money to Doğru could be targeted with criminal charges.
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: Negotiations Collapsed – Return to War
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The US-Iran Scenario That Most Scares Israel
By Ali Haydar | Al-Akhbar | October 9, 2013
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a series of threats toward Iran and its interlocutors in the West, including the US, as serious negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program seem more plausible.
As a possible rapprochement looms between the US and Iran, Netanyahu has attempted to impose impossible Israeli conditions on the negotiators, such as the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, not to mention threatening military force.
Whatever the deal that could materialize between Iran and the West, Israel is going to find itself before an open-ended path. One can foresee three possible scenarios… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
- There are No Ceasefires with Israel, Only Opportunities for Later Attacks
- China to Ignore Trump’s Blockade: The Strait Remains Open to Us
- Trump’s desperate bombasts amount to war crimes
- Most Israelis oppose Iran ceasefire, reject talks: Poll
- Iran to charge ships from ‘hostile’ nations to cross Hormuz – security chief
- UK, Spain reject Trump’s new scheme to blockade Hormuz Strait
- Russian frigate ‘resurfaces’, chases off NATO pirates days after Kiev ‘sank’ it
- Ukraine Targets Russian Merchant Fleet With NATO Intel Support – Presidential Aide
- Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ makes mockery of UK naval power
- If Americans Knew
- Emergency waivers move arms for Israel, UAE to speed lane
- Caitlin Johnstone: Nobody’s “Obsessed” With Israel — It’s Just A Uniquely Horrible Country
- Israel’s Ben Gvir says he feels like the ‘owner’ of Al-Aqsa Mosque
- History of flotilla campaigns to end Israel’s siege of Gaza
- Humanitarian Scorecard: Six Months In, Gaza Ceasefire is Failing
- Mark Levin Seems Upset We Haven’t Nuked Iran
- Israeli prison authorities are blocking hundreds of solidarity postcards being sent to female Palestinian prisoners
- ‘I wished for death’: Sexual violence in Israel’s prisons is an ‘organized state policy’
- Israeli army shoots, kills 9-year-old girl in her Gaza classroom
- Israel is attacking Lebanon to sabotage the Iran ceasefire, but the media is hiding its true motivation
- No Tricks Zone
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
Aletho News 