Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Parliamentary elections begin in Syria with citizens barred from voting

The Cradle | September 15, 2025

Syria is set to hold parliamentary elections on 15 September, its first since the fall of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government to extremist forces late last year.

The process will continue until Saturday, with the possibility of extension if deemed necessary.

Regional electoral committees will select 140 seats out of Syria’s 210-seat parliament, rather than citizens directly voting for members of parliament. The committees have been appointed by the Supreme Election Committee.

The other 70 MPs are set to be selected personally by Syria’s interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, the former Al-Qaeda chief known previously as Abu Mohammad al-Julani.

The Syrian government recently announced that the elections will not include Suwayda Governorate, where thousands of Druze civilians were massacred by government forces during heavy fighting in the area in July.

It also said the Kurdish-controlled governorates of Hasakah and Raqqa will not be included, stressing that this was for “security concerns.” Kurdish authorities have denounced the decision.

Tensions have escalated recently between Damascus and the US-backed Kurdish militia, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which is closely linked to the de facto autonomous administration that governs parts of north and east Syria.

The SDF had signed an agreement in March to integrate its forces into Syria’s extremist-dominated military. However, it has demanded that it remain under Kurdish command and enter the army as a bloc, rather than dissolve and be conscripted regularly.

No SDF members were included when Damascus announced the formation of the Syrian government in March.

Monday’s election process has reinforced concerns about the lack of inclusivity in post-Assad Syria.

Khaled Jabr, a lawyer and legal expert from Hasakah, told North Press Agency on 11 September that the elections “do not reflect the people’s will” and instead represent “another form of dictatorship under a different guise.”

“The Damascus government monopolizes decision-making, excluding the people from every process – whether drafting a transitional constitution, forming transitional justice bodies, or even appointing the president. All these measures constitute clear violations of the law,” he added.

Jabr went on to say that people in north and east Syria “are not at all concerned with this electoral mechanism imposed by Damascus, as there is ongoing pressure to exclude them from participation.”

“Essentially, the government seeks to reinforce authoritarianism, far removed from democracy and human rights.”

Months before the massacres of the Druze in July, Syrian government troops killed thousands of Alawite civilians during a brutal and indiscriminate military operation on the country’s coast.

Syria has enjoyed sanctions relief from Europe, and will also soon be relieved of US Caesar Act sanctions despite failing to form an inclusive government and persecuting minorities.

Political corruption has also emerged as a concern in the current Syrian government. A Reuters investigation from July revealed that Syrian leadership has quietly taken control of over $1.6 billion in assets formerly held by businessmen linked to the Assad government.

The asset takeover, conducted outside public view, is part of an economic overhaul directed by Hazem al-Sharaa, the older brother of the self-appointed interim president. Sources told Reuters the committee has negotiated directly with sanctioned and unsanctioned tycoons, demanding that they hand over substantial parts of their wealth in exchange for immunity and permission to resume operations.

Syria’s president formerly led Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front and was personally involved in war crimes against civilians in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. The Nusra Front was later rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

Alongside a long list of other crimes, HTS would steal humanitarian aid bound for civilians during the Syrian war and resell it for exorbitant prices on the black market.

September 15, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Leave a comment

Brazilian Judge Orders Global Deletion of X Posts in Civil Defamation Cases, Rejects Geoblocking as Insufficient

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2025

A Brazilian judge’s order demanding that posts on X be erased not just within Brazil but across the entire globe has caused concerns over national courts asserting control over international online speech.

The ruling, handed down by Judge Jeferson Isidoro Mafra in Blumenau, Santa Catarina, orders the platform to delete specific content worldwide, regardless of whether it violates laws in other countries.

The platform’s Global Government Affairs team publicly criticized the decision, calling it a direct threat to global freedom of expression.

“This means that even if the content is not unlawful in other countries, the Brazilian judiciary believes it has the power to issue orders that extend beyond its own jurisdiction and reach the entire world,” the statement read.

X also pointed out that the ruling runs counter to international law, which restricts a nation’s legal reach to its own territory. “This contradicts a basic principle of international law that limits jurisdiction to national territory and puts global freedom of expression at risk,” the platform added.

The ruling stems from two lawsuits filed by Leonardo Wagenknecht Utech, a business administrator, who accused other users of insulting him on the platform.

One of the disputes began after Utech mocked a pro-amnesty demonstration related to the January 8 riots.

His sarcastic comment drew a harsh reply from another user, which Judge Mafra determined was offensive and unlawful.

The judge ordered the response removed and instructed X to provide the IP address of the user in question, an order the platform followed.

But the most controversial element wasn’t the content of the posts. It was the court’s insistence that the deletion must apply globally.

X argued that enforcing Brazilian laws beyond Brazil’s borders sets a dangerous precedent, but Judge Mafra dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, declaring that full removal was non-negotiable.

He also claimed that there was no issue of overreach, saying the court’s order “removes Brazilian interest and is based on Brazilian standards.”

In a second case brought by Utech, the pattern repeated. After he made a comment critical of Pope Leo XIV’s alleged political leanings, another user responded with an insult.

Once again, the judge ruled in Utech’s favor and again imposed a global takedown order.

Mafra maintained that such posts exceeded the bounds of lawful expression, asserting that “freedom of expression is not unlimited” and must conform to notions of “honor, good faith, good customs.”

The judge imposed financial penalties for noncompliance, including a daily fine of one thousand reais ($183) capped at twenty thousand.

Two separate injunctions have been granted so far, both ordering global deletion of user posts.

September 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Isabella Cêpa Wins Landmark Free Speech Case After Brazil Sought 25-Year Sentence for “Misgendering”

Courts forced to choose between identity politics and the constitution

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2025

Isabella Cêpa, a Brazilian feminist and outspoken women’s rights advocate, has defeated a legal campaign that once threatened her with up to 25 years in prison.

Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court issued a final, non-appealable ruling in her favor, concluding a high-profile case that began with a brief social media video and evolved into one of the most significant free speech battles in Brazil’s modern history.

After years of legal pressure and public silence from Brazilian institutions, Cêpa has not only escaped prosecution but has been granted full refugee protections in Europe.

The move marks the first time a Brazilian citizen has received asylum abroad for being persecuted over gender-critical beliefs. Her case has now become a legal precedent, one that free speech advocates say could help protect others facing similar repression.

The conflict began in 2020 when Erika Hilton, a politician who identifies as a woman, won a city council seat in São Paulo. The media widely described Hilton as “the most voted woman” in the city. This caught Cêpa’s attention and led to her making a video that she posted online.

“At the time I didn’t even know who this person was. I just saw a headline on an Instagram page celebrating that ‘the most voted woman in São Paulo is a transwoman,’” Cêpa said.

“Then, I shared a video with my followers saying I was disappointed to hear that the most voted-for woman in São Paulo, later found out that it was in the entire country, was a man.”

That single statement triggered a criminal complaint. Hilton reported her to police, which led to an investigation. In early 2022, authorities summoned Cêpa for questioning.

She was unaware of the extent of the charges until a major newspaper contacted her for comment.

It was only through that journalist that she learned prosecutors had charged her with five counts of “social racism,” a category invented by the Supreme Federal Court in 2019 to criminalize discrimination against the “LGBTQ community” under Brazil’s race-based hate crime laws.

Investigators reportedly combed through Cêpa’s social media history to gather posts that might be labeled “transphobic.” These were used to build a case portraying her as a repeat offender. The potential sentence added up to 25 years in prison.

While her legal fight in Brazil is now over, her victory has implications far beyond her personal safety. Cêpa’s successful asylum application may now serve as a blueprint for others whose gender-critical views place them at odds with increasingly aggressive speech laws.

September 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Ireland’s Communications Minister Stands by “Disinformation” Plan, Citing Need to Tackle Online “Gossip”

Public consultation was billed as dialogue but ended up as window dressing

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2025

Despite overwhelming public resistance, Ireland’s government is pressing on with its national “disinformation” strategy.

Communications Minister Patrick O’Donovan has acknowledged that most responses to the public consultation opposed the plan, but said the State has a duty to tackle “gossip” circulating online.

The consultation, carried out ahead of the strategy’s launch, produced a clear result: approximately 83 percent of submissions were against the proposal, even objecting to the concept itself.

Still, the government moved ahead. When asked during a press conference what purpose the consultation served if the outcome was dismissed, O’Donovan avoided addressing the contradiction directly.

“Yeah, and we got responses from other people as well,” he said, adding: “What we have seen over the last number of years is that there has been, unfortunately, in some quarters, a move to believe gossip online as fact and run with gossip online as fact.”

The strategy, introduced earlier this year, outlines a range of state-backed efforts to counter what officials describe as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.

O’Donovan emphasized the importance of “trusted sources,” claiming the initiative will help the public separate truth from fiction.

“So look, it’s very important from a government’s point of view, from a democracy point of view, and from basically being able to disseminate what’s news and what’s fiction to have a national counter-disinformation and malinformation, and misinformation strategy,” he said.

According to O’Donovan, the government plans to increase its support for traditional media, including print, broadcast, and commercial radio. He also highlighted measures to aid new journalists entering the field. “It sets out a number of different actions, including supports for young journalists that are emerging out of university, how we make sure that they actually have a pathway for careers,” he said.

Yet the core issue raised by the public, freedom of expression, remains ignored.

When pressed by a reporter, O’Donovan offered no explanation for why the department failed to examine how the strategy might affect free speech.

His own department later confirmed in writing that it had conducted no analysis on that issue, even though it dominated the consultation feedback.

The Minister instead reiterated the need to protect news integrity. “I think what’s very justifiable in Ireland in 2025 is that what passes for news is actually news. What passes for fiction is actually fiction,” he said. “Because unfortunately, we have, notwithstanding the importance of free speech, an awful lot of what’s passing off as news at the moment is just mere gossip.”

Far from responding to concerns, the government appears intent on pushing ahead regardless. O’Donovan framed the consultation as just one piece of the broader strategy, which will continue to receive State investment and institutional support.

In his view, ensuring that citizens receive information from approved sources outweighs objections raised about censorship. “That’s what our department is doing. That’s what the strategy sets out,” he said. “And that’s what the misinformation, malinformation and disinformation strategy seeks to be able to support.”

But for those who took part in the consultation, the government’s course of action suggests their input carried no real weight.

No adjustments were made to reflect public concerns, no assessment was done on the potential risks to civil liberties, and no justification has been offered for ignoring a process that was billed as public engagement.

If Ireland’s disinformation strategy is meant to reinforce democratic values, its rollout has done the opposite. It has shut out dissent, refused transparency, and treated public opinion as a formality rather than a foundation.

September 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Von der Leyen Unveils New EU Censorship Push, Online Digital ID Plans, in 2025 State of the Union Speech

Von der Leyen casts online “misinformation” as a contagion, folding speech regulation into the language of safety.

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 11, 2025

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen used her 2025 State of the Union speech to unveil a raft of new regulatory measures that introduce new challenges for digital rights and freedom of expression across the continent and the world.

Framed as measures for public health, democracy, and child protection, the Commission is pushing the EU deeper into institutionalized censorship and online regulation.

Addressing the European Parliament, von der Leyen declared she is “appalled by the disinformation that threatens global progress on everything from measles to polio.”

Citing fears of a global health crisis, she introduced a “Global Health Resilience Initiative,” which she said the EU would lead.

This initiative is expected to tie online speech more tightly to global health narratives, laying the groundwork for broader suppression of dissenting views under the label of medical misinformation.

Another centerpiece of her address was the so-called “European Democracy Shield,” a program that we’ve covered in great detail, intended to streamline and centralize the Commission’s censorship machinery under the banner of fighting “foreign information manipulation and interference.”

Framing the internet as a battlefield, she said: “Our democracy is under attack. The rise in information manipulation and disinformation is dividing our societies.”

Expanding on that framework, she announced the creation of a new institution, the European Centre for Democratic Resilience.

According to von der Leyen, this center will allow the EU to scale up its ability “to monitor and detect information manipulation and disinformation.”

But the agenda didn’t stop there. She introduced the Media Resilience Program, which she claimed would support “independent journalism and media literacy.”

In practice, however, such efforts often result in government-approved messaging being amplified, while dissenting outlets don’t get funded.

Von der Leyen pointed to declining local journalism in rural communities and claimed: “This has created many news deserts where disinformation thrives…This is why we will launch a new Media Resilience Program – it will support independent journalism and media literacy.”

Despite the existing Digital Services Act already mandating age verification (and therefore digital ID) online, von der Leyen floated a new, even more restrictive direction for internet access among young people.

Drawing inspiration from Australia’s controversial 2024 Online Safety Amendment, which includes a social media ban for those under 16, she suggested the EU could move toward similar rules.

“Just as in my days, we as a society taught our children that they could not smoke, drink, and watch adult content until a certain age. I believe it is time we consider doing the same for social media,” she said.

The entire speech signals a continued consolidation of control over digital spaces by EU institutions, with a heavy focus on regulating speech and tightening access restrictions.

September 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Zionist lawfare operation facing collapse?

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | September 13, 2025

On September 7th, notorious Zionist lobby group UK Lawyers For Israel published a joint letter, triggered by 86% of International Association of Genocide Scholars members backing a resolution declaring “Israel” is committing genocide in Gaza days earlier. The lengthy screed blamed Hamas for Tel Aviv’s mass slaughter of Palestinians since October 7th, and charged the Resistance group itself was in fact guilty of genocide, on the risible, purported basis that Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was intended “to destroy, in whole or in part, Jews and Israelis.”

UKLFI’s repulsive, inverted narrative of Tel Aviv’s 21st century Holocaust in Gaza was reportedly endorsed by close to 500 “legal, antisemitism, history, holocaust, and genocide scholars.” Yet, upon publication, multiple listed signatories angrily announced their names were included without consent, while denouncing the letter’s content in the strongest possible terms. Close inspection indicates several signatories are listed repeatedly, many are tied to Zionist lobby groups, and others – such as a professor of electrical engineering – are self-evidently not qualified to make any judgement on genocide whatsoever.

Such brazen fraud is par for the course for UKLFI. The group has a lengthy, deplorable history of targeting individuals and organisations via frivolous if not outright vexatious lawfare, falsely conflating criticism of the Zionist entity with antisemitism in order to neutralise Palestine solidarity in schools, universities, workplaces, hospitals, and elsewhere. UKLFI’s embarrassingly botched stunt is especially shameful this time round though, as the operation is presently embroiled in significant legal quandaries of its own. The situation is so dire that UKLFI could collapse.

As Al Mayadeen reported in August, a detailed complaint was filed against UKLFI by the Public Interest Law Centre and European Legal Support Center with Britain’s Solicitors Regulation Authority. The 114-page document accused the group of using the law for nakedly politicised intimidation purposes, and ostensibly operating as a legal body despite being unregulated and unaccountable. Adding to UKLFI’s woes, its charitable wing is concurrently under formal investigation by the Charity Commission For England and Wales, due to the pioneering research of advocacy group CAGE.

‘Validating Evidence’

Founded in 2010 – aptly following a “conference on lawfare” convened in an illegal Israeli settlement near Jerusalem [Al-Quds] – UKLFI quickly established itself at the forefront of a new, “more combative” strain of Tel Aviv’s lobbying in Britain. UKLFI’s website is entirely explicit about its rabid commitment to defending the Zionist entity by any means necessary. UKLFI avowedly provides “legal support including advocacy, research, advice and campaigning in combating attempts to undermine, attack and/or delegitimise Israel, Israeli organisations, Israelis and/or supporters of Israel.”

The organisation moreover aims “to contribute generally as lawyers to creating a supportive climate of opinion” in Britain towards the Zionist entity. CAGE forensically details how UKLFI’s stances are not only “fringe” within the legal profession, but reflect Zionism at its most extreme. For instance, the organisation’s representatives fervently argue the Occupied Palestinian Territories aren’t in fact in breach of international law. The UN has consistently found over many years these Israeli settlements are flagrantly illegal, and displaced Palestinians must be permitted to return home.

CAGE traces in forensic detail UKLFI’s intimate yet opaque ties with the Israeli government. In 2012, UKLFI jointly hosted a two-day seminar alongside the Zionist entity’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and London’s Israeli embassy on lawfare strategies. This included presentations on strategies to cripple the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and how British laws – including the Public Order Act, legislation on Hate Speech, and civil suits for defamation – could be used to the detriment of Palestine solidarity.

In 2019, UKLFI chiefs consulted senior Israeli Ministry of Justice officials, seeking “assistance in finding or validating evidence to help” the organisation in “potential legal actions” brought against it by two pro-Palestine charities, after UKLFI libelously charged the pair were linked directly to proscribed terrorist groups. The Zionist lobby group has lodged bogus complaints against countless organisations, including leading Palestinian aid organisations, to the Charity Commission, and other authorities since birth. This includes Amnesty International, for accusing “Israel” of practicing apartheid. None have been upheld.

In 2016, UKLFI established a charitable wing – the pair are effectively indivisible, sharing patrons and personnel. The charity claims to offer pro bono education and training services, but CAGE notes this invariably amounts to “apologia for racial segregation and apartheid.” Its events routinely host Zionist Occupation Force representatives, and hardline Zionist figures and groups. Some speakers deny uncontroversially proven historic Israeli atrocities and massacres against Palestinians. Others offer advice to audiences on how to weaponise the law to further Tel Aviv’s interests locally and globally.

In 2019, UKLFI’s charitable wing hosted Regavim, an Israeli NGO that actively advocates for the destruction of Palestinian homes in the West Bank. The organisation itself employs lawfare, and via regulatory loopholes, facilitates the destruction and dismantling of Palestinian homes and infrastructure. In the process, per CAGE, “entire communities” are left “without proper roads, houses, or even water systems.” Regavim was founded by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and is Zionist entity-funded. Even liberal Israeli lobby groups harshly condemned the event.

A common UKLFI tactic is to bombard British regulatory bodies and private entities “to disrupt any public displays of solidarity for Palestine” in any context, problematising even the most basic expressions of support as somehow antisemitic. This has prompted numerous organisations to ban wearing Palestine badges or other paraphernalia by staff or students, and in extreme instances, led to employees losing their jobs. CAGE records:

“There are manifold cases in both the public and private sector of UKLFI writing to organisations and attempting to ensure staff of those organisations do not wear anything that might indicate support for Palestine… [UKLFI] doesn’t appear to have any cogent case for why expressing solidarity for Palestine necessitates Jewish people to feel unsafe – especially when considering the widespread support that the Palestinian cause has among Jewish groups in the UK.”

‘Encouraging Hamas’

UKLFI’s noxious activities have become turbocharged since the Gaza genocide’s eruption. Along the way, it has taken credit for the suspension of pro-Palestine NHS doctors, among other things. Meanwhile, in April 2024, UKLFI charity wing chief Natasha Hausdorff – formerly an Israeli Supreme Court clerk – testified to parliament’s Business and Trade Committee on British arms exports to the Zionist entity. She argued the flow of weapons should continue, dismissed confirmed Palestinian death tolls as fraudulent, and unbelievably praised Tel Aviv’s “consistent upholding of international humanitarian law.”

The next month, UKLFI deployed perverse arguments to deny the Zionist entity was deliberately starving Gazans. In a letter to the Co-operative Group opposing a motion to boycott Israeli products, UKLFI chief Jonathan Turner condemned a Lancet estimate of 186,000 Palestinians murdered by Tel Aviv during the genocide to date. He sickeningly suggested “Israel’s” unconscionable assault in fact delivered health benefits that could increase local life expectancy, such as a reduction in obesity, due to constricted access to unhealthy food and cigarettes.

In September that year, UKLFI dispatched a formal letter to the British government threatening legal action in the form of a judicial review unless a partial, token suspension of 30 arms export licences to “Israel” was reversed. Three months later, the lobby group submitted complaints to the Bar Standards Board and International Criminal Court against ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan for seeking arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. UKLFI alleged Khan had breached professional conduct rules, by making false statements and misleading the ICC.

The Court responded by warning UKLFI to be “alive to their own ethical responsibilities and their duty not to mislead.” Clearly undeterred, in April 2025, Hausdorff testified to Parliament’s Foreign Affairs committee. She used the opportunity to dodge charges that “Israel” was deliberately starving Palestinians, repeatedly dismiss Palestinian statehood as a “fantasy”, and accuse Western governments – including Britain’s own – of somehow “encouraging Hamas”. Her comments elicited audible objections of “delusional” from committee chair Emily Thornberry, not recorded in official transcripts.

The next month, Hausdorff led a counter-protest in London against a public commemoration of Palestine’s 1948 ethnic cleansing – known as the Nakba – declaring the event an antisemitic blood libel, and saying that “the lie of the Nakba” was part of a wider attack on Jews. This was despite the commemoration’s sizeable Jewish presence. Hausdorff published her address on social media – one of “innumerable” examples of public statements contrary to international law she has made collated by CAGE, which triggered the Charity Commission probe.

None of UKLFI’s work could plausibly be characterised as fulfilling legitimate charitable or legal objectives. It’s a bitter irony indeed that the organisation, which has for a decade-and-a-half sought to corrupt and distort British law in service of Tel Aviv’s repugnant settler colonial project, and ruined countless careers and lives in the process, now finds itself effectively in the dock. UKLFI’s latest faux pas, like “Israel’s” recent failed attempt at regime change in Iran, is unambiguously indicative of a flailing entity on the verge of extinction.

September 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

US lawmakers introduce ‘thought police’ bill to strip citizens of passports over Israel criticism

The Cradle | September 13, 2025

A US congressman is introducing a bill that could potentially be used to deny US citizens the right to travel based solely on their speech, including for criticism of Israel, the Intercept reported on 13 September.

Introduced by Florida Congressman Brian Mast, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the bill would grant Secretary of State Marco Rubio the power to revoke the passports of US citizens in the same way he has revoked the green cards and visas of foreign nationals in the US for criticizing Israel.

In March, Secretary of State Rubio revoked the visa of Turkish doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk after she wrote an opinion piece critical of Israel in the Tufts University student newspaper in 2024.

The op-ed did not mention Hamas, but called for boycotting and divesting from Israel.

One section of the bill grants the Secretary of State the ability to deny passports to people determined to have “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”

The reference to “material support” disturbs civil liberties advocates because it is vague and can be interpreted to include speech and anti-war activism.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which functions as a front for Israeli intelligence in the US, and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law suggested in a letter last year that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) was providing “material support” for Hamas by organizing campus protests against Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

The provision regarding material support to terrorism poses a threat specifically to journalists, The Intercept noted.

In 2023, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas demanded a Justice Department “national security investigation” of AP, CNN, The New York Times, and Reuters after they published photos taken by freelance photographers during the Hamas attack on Israeli settlements and military bases on 7 October 2023.

September 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

All messenger apps are ‘transparent’ to spy agencies – Kremlin

RT | September 7, 2025

Messaging apps are “absolutely transparent” to intelligence agencies and security services, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. People who use them to share sensitive information should be aware of the risks, he added.

“All messengers are absolutely transparent systems, and people who use them should understand that they are transparent… to the security services,” Peskov told journalists on Friday at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia.

He added that it is particularly important to consider the risks when sensitive government or commercial data is shared through these apps, which can be accessed by foreign intelligence services.

Peskov was commenting on Telegram and WhatsApp in Russia, as well as the Russian government’s support for developing a domestic messaging platform.

Russian security services have accused Telegram and WhatsApp of using double standards for refusing to share data with the Russian authorities about fraud and terrorist plots while complying with similar requests from other countries.

In July, a member of the State Duma’s committee on information policy and technology, Anton Nemkin, called WhatsApp’s continued presence in Russia a “legalized breach of national security.”

Russian law enforcement officials have said that Ukrainian intelligence, along with other malicious actors such as swindlers and con artists, often relies on databases containing personal data obtained through WhatsApp and Telegram to recruit agents or identify targets inside Russia.

In December 2024, the US government also warned senior officials to switch to encrypted communications after a security breach in which a group of hackers stole data, including information stored under US government surveillance protocols as part of “legal” wiretapping of American suspects.

September 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Australia Orders Tech Giants to Enforce Age Verification Digital ID by December 10

A safety law that reads like a blueprint for a surveillance state

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 8, 2025

Australia is preparing to enforce one of the most invasive online measures in its history under the guise of child safety.

With the introduction of mandatory age verification across social media platforms, privacy advocates are warning that the policy, set to begin December 10, 2025, risks eroding fundamental digital rights for every user, not just those under 16.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has told tech giants like Google, Meta, TikTok, and Snap that they must be ready to detect and shut down accounts held by Australians under the age threshold.

She has made it clear that platforms are expected to implement broad “age assurance” systems across their services, and that “self-declaration of age will not, on its own, be enough to constitute reasonable steps.”

The new rules stem from the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which gives the government sweeping new authority to dictate how users verify their age before accessing digital services. Any platform that doesn’t comply could be fined up to $31M USD.

While the government claims the law isn’t a ban on social media for children under 16, in practice, it forces platforms to block these users unless they can pass age checks, which means a digital ID.

There will be no penalties for children or their parents, but platforms face immense legal and financial pressure to enforce restrictions, pressure that almost inevitably leads to surveillance-based systems.

The Commissioner said companies must “detect and de-activate these accounts from 10 December, and provide account holders with appropriate information and support before then.”

These expectations extend to providing “clear, age-appropriate communications” and making sure users can download their data and find emotional or mental health resources when their accounts are terminated.

She further stated that “efficacy will require layered safety measures, sometimes known as a ‘waterfall approach’,” a term often associated with collecting increasing amounts of personal data at multiple steps of user interaction.

Such layered systems often rely on facial scanning, government ID uploads, biometric estimation, or AI-powered surveillance tools to estimate age.

Privacy campaigners warn that these approaches risk normalizing the constant collection of sensitive personal data, building infrastructure that could easily be repurposed for broader tracking or profiling.

To support enforcement, eSafety has launched a self-assessment tool for companies to determine whether their services are covered by the law.

The Commissioner noted that the tool would help companies figure out if “any of their services may be excluded” under the legislative rules issued by the Minister for Communications.

However, most major social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, and X are almost certain to be included.

eSafety is also developing regulatory guidance to clarify what “reasonable steps” will mean in practice.

The Commissioner has made it clear that platforms must already be preparing to prevent children from manipulating settings to bypass restrictions, ensure that complaint mechanisms are functional and accessible, and plan for full implementation ahead of the December deadline.

Citing consultations with over 160 organizations and more than 50 young people aged 13 to 23, the Commissioner claims there is “strong community support for measures to better protect children online.”

She added, “Australians have told us they want strong, practical protections that keep children safe without compromising privacy or fairness. We have listened, and this feedback is shaping the guidance we are putting in place for industry.”

However, many in the privacy and digital rights communities question whether such a balance is possible when the state’s approach is to compel private companies to verify the age of every user, regardless of whether they’re children.

The phrase “without compromising privacy” rings hollow for those who recognize that age verification at this scale often relies on intrusive surveillance methods that compromise anonymity for everyone, not just young users.

The government maintains that only services with core social networking features are affected.

Online games and basic messaging apps may be excluded. But messaging functions embedded in social media platforms, like DMs on Instagram or group chats on Snapchat, will fall under the new restrictions. The definition is broad enough that many widely used platforms could be swept into the regulatory net.

Although the Commissioner has publicly insisted that safety and privacy “do not have to be mutually exclusive,” the architecture required to meet the government’s demands suggests otherwise.

Once systems are in place to scan faces, verify IDs, or track user activity for the sake of age assurance, they can be leveraged for other purposes by platforms or the state.

Australia’s move places it at the frontier of a growing global trend where safety rhetoric is used to justify mass surveillance.

Privacy advocates argue that introducing mandatory identification online not only limits access but also normalizes tracking in digital spaces that once allowed for anonymity, freedom of expression, and private communication.

Despite these concerns, the Commissioner urged platforms not to delay. “This is the time for companies to start mobilizing and planning for implementation,” she said, adding that “children, parents and carers are counting on services to deliver on their obligations and prepare their young users and the trusted adults in their lives for this monumental change.”

September 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Europe kills democracy to save liberalism

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 8, 2025

The latest opinion polls are extremely indicative of a radical political shift in the European landscape.

In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) gathers the preferences of 26% of voters, which clearly positions it as the largest opposition party. When the voting intentions for the CDU and CSU are separated, the AfD then becomes the most popular German party.

Meanwhile, in France, the National Rally (RN) — now led by Jordan Bardella — already enjoys the support of 37% of citizens, placing it far ahead of its Macronist and progressive rivals. In the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK also leads in the polls with 30% of voting intentions. Also leading is the Freedom Party of Austria, with 37% popular support. And in a similar situation, we see the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, with 33% of voting intentions.

Further down in their respective countries, we see Chega in Portugal as the second most popular party, with 23% of voting intentions. Also in second place are the Sweden Democrats, with 20% of voting intentions, and Norway’s Progress Party, with 22%.

Other European countries see similar parties in solid third-place positions, such as in Denmark, Belgium, Finland, and Poland. And if we discount Meloni’s “Brothers of Italy,” we also see the Lega in Italy in a similar situation.

We are very clearly facing a political trend that goes far beyond a localized phenomenon. The phenomenon is continental and, as it represents a gradual increase over years, apparently lasting. These parties will not eventually return to political marginality and seem to be here to stay.

It is inevitable to consider that the rise of these parties challenging the liberal order is a consequence of the special military operation. The trade and energy rupture generated some significant economic problems in Europe. The German economy shrank, while the French and Italian economies stagnated. Most European countries also faced an inflationary crisis in 2022 and, to control inflation, had to further tighten public spending with austerity policies, as well as increase interest rates. Unemployment also rose, especially in Germany, where several factories have been closed in the last 2 years.

Furthermore, it does not go unnoticed that the leaders of the UK, France, and Germany have increasingly resorted to inflammatory rhetoric hinting at sending their countries’ youth to fight against Russia in Ukraine.

But the strengthening of conservative populism in Europe is not a new phenomenon. It is a gradual evolution that has been building for 20 years, and its main cause is mass immigration, with all its nefarious consequences in the realms of security, economy, culture, etc.

We imagine that such a phenomenon is not considered desirable by the current European elites. Otherwise, one could not explain the judicial offensive against the AfD aimed at banning the party, nor the lawfare practiced against Marine Le Pen making her ineligible, and even less the entire mobilization to arrest Calin Georgescu in Romania, as well as the strange maneuvers that led to the defeat of George Simion in that country’s presidential elections.

But apparently, the situation does not stop at lawfare and potentially illegal judicial maneuvers.

In France, a wave of deaths seems to be linked to Macron, with center-right legislator Olivier Marleix and François Freve (a plastic surgeon linked to Brigitte Macron) on the list of suspicious deaths. Now, more recently, there are reports of at least 7 mysterious deaths of AfD politicians from North Rhine-Westphalia on the eve of local elections.

Probably, these waves of mysterious deaths in France and Germany will never be solved, but a different atmosphere is clearly felt in Europe today. An atmosphere that is certainly less free than that of Europe a few decades ago.

Election manipulation, imprisonment of opposing candidates, mysterious deaths of critics, curtailment of freedom of expression; Western European countries are beginning to check all the boxes of typical dystopian tyrannies — what has been said about China, Russia, and North Korea that has not already become reality in the UK, Germany, and France?

It seems that to preserve “liberal democracy” against “extremists,” Europe is voluntarily abandoning all remnants of democracy.

September 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , | 3 Comments

UK arrests nearly 900 over support for Palestine Action activist group

Al Mayadeen | September 7, 2025

Nearly 900 people were arrested in the United Kingdom over the weekend during a protest in London in support of the banned pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action, according to the Metropolitan Police.

Authorities confirmed that 857 individuals were arrested under the Terrorism Act of 2000 for supporting a proscribed organization, with another 33 detained for separate offences, including alleged assaults on police officers.

Solidarity with Gaza targeted in crackdown

The protest, described by organizers as an expression of solidarity with Gaza, was held outside the UK Parliament and drew around 1,500 participants.

Many demonstrators carried signs condemning “Israel’s” aggression and genocide in Gaza and expressing support for Palestine.

This comes as “Israel” intensified its bombardment of Gaza and launched new strikes with the stated aim of seizing Gaza City to defeat the Palestinian resistance.

Critics have accused the UK government of using counterterrorism laws to suppress peaceful activism.

The United Nations and other human rights groups have condemned the July decision to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, citing threats to civil liberties and free speech.

Police claim violence; organizers insist protest was peaceful

Of the 33 non-terrorism-related arrests, 17 were allegedly for assaults on officers. The police claimed their officers faced “intolerable” abuse. However, organizers from Defend Our Juries (DOJ), who coordinated the “Lift the Ban” rally, described it as “the picture of peaceful protest.”

Reports noted that many of those arrested were older individuals, some holding signs like “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

If convicted, the majority face up to six months in prison, while organizers could face sentences of up to 14 years.

Public figures, UN slam ban as legal overreach

The ban on Palestine Action was pushed by former interior minister Yvette Cooper, who accused the group of engaging in “aggressive and intimidatory attacks” against public and private institutions.

She also claimed that court-imposed reporting restrictions have limited public understanding of the group’s actions.

Nonetheless, public support for Palestine Action has grown since the group’s proscription, with many viewing the UK’s actions as an attempt to silence those who speak out against the war on Gaza and stand in solidarity with Palestine.

September 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

International lawyers highlight the persecution of the leader of Gagauzia in Moldova

Denouncing political persecution, they are preparing an appeal to European courts and the UN

RT | September 5, 2025

International human rights activists have come together to support the defense in the case of the Gagauzia leader, Evgenia Gutsul, sentenced by a Moldovan court to 7 years in prison for illicit financing of a party and an electoral campaign. French lawyer William Julie and legal advisor to the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, Gonzalo Boye, have intervened in defense of Gutsul’s interests. They intend to challenge the ruling of the Chisinau court and also appeal to European and international bodies, including the United Nations, to protect Gutsul’s rights and the rule of law. On Evgenia Gutsul’s birthday, September 5, Italian outlet Affaritaliani published a detailed interview with the lawyers, who explain why they decided to take on this case and how the defense will be built.

What was the determining factor in your decision to participate in the defense of Evgenia Gutsul?

Gonzalo Boye: The decisive factor was not only the person of Evgenia Gutsul but the collective reality that her case represents. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, political persecution often does not target an isolated individual, but an objectively identifiable group of people who embody certain political or ideological positions. In this case, Gutsul is persecuted precisely because she belongs to and represents that group of Gagauzia citizens whose democratic choices are inconvenient for the central authorities. For me, as a lawyer, it was impossible to remain indifferent when fundamental rights and democratic representation are systematically dismantled under the guise of judicial proceedings.

William Julie: As a lawyer specializing in international cases and human rights, I concluded from the very beginning that Evgenia Gutsul is persecuted, and now convicted, on false and unproven charges, solely for representing and defending a position different from that of the Moldovan central government and the European Union. The ongoing criminal proceedings leave no doubt that this is an evident attempt by the Moldovan state to silence her, despite her being a legitimately elected representative of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia. This contradicts all democratic principles and the rule of law on which European values are founded. Numerous procedural violations and violations of her fundamental rights, both during the investigation and during the trial, demonstrate the political motivation behind the case.

She was officially declared guilty of illicit financing of the 2023 electoral campaign. What are your counterarguments?

Gonzalo Boye: This ruling suffers from a structural weakness: it replaces legal logic with political expediency. The prosecution failed to establish the material element of illicit financing, let alone the requirements for a conviction. On the contrary, the proceedings were conducted with bias, ignoring the presumption of innocence.

Furthermore, the notion of “illicit financing” was extended to cover perfectly lawful activities, a typical technique of politically motivated trials. Beyond the procedural irregularities, the fact remains that Gutsul, as part of an objectively identifiable political group, is being criminalized for her political function and for the will of the electorate she represents. This is incompatible with the rule of law and the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

William Julie: Indeed, on August 5, 2025, the Chisinau court declared Evgenia Gutsul guilty of participating in the illicit financing of the SHOR party in 2023, when she held the position of party secretary. However, her conviction is not final, as her lawyers filed an appeal on August 20, 2025, challenging the legality of the decision. Therefore, she is still considered innocent under Moldovan law. Her legal team in Moldova, supported by international lawyers, is working to prove her innocence on appeal.

Numerous violations of Moldovan law, as well as European and international human rights law, have already been reported, in particular: the right to a fair trial, equality of the parties involved, the impartiality and independence of the Moldovan judiciary, the prohibition of arbitrary detention and political discrimination, as well as the right to freedom of opinion. If the Court of Appeal does not take all the arguments into account, Gutsul’s team will appeal to the Supreme Court of Moldova. If the conviction is upheld by all Moldovan courts, the case will be brought before the European Court of Human Rights and the relevant UN bodies, including the Human Rights Committee, as Moldova has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocols.

How do you plan to defend Gutsul?

Gonzalo Boye: Our defense has two dimensions. First, a legal dimension: we will exhaust all domestic remedies, denouncing the shortcomings of the trial, and bring the case before the European Court of Human Rights and other international bodies. We will demonstrate that the conviction is the result of discrimination against an identifiable political group, in violation of Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Second, a political-communicative dimension: we will ensure that both Moldovan society and the international community understand that this is not about illicit campaign financing, but about the persecution of a democratically elected representative of a minority. Silence would mean complicity; denunciation creates accountability.

William Julie: As already mentioned, all available legal remedies will be used, both at the national level and before the ECHR and UN bodies (the Human Rights Committee, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression). They will be involved if the appeal trial does not declare her innocent.

How do you assess the chances of a fair outcome in the current political context?

Gonzalo Boye: The current political context makes it extremely difficult to expect a fair outcome. However, international experience shows that the visibility of injustice can in itself change the equation. The more the public and international actors recognize that this is a case of discrimination against an objectively identifiable group for its political stance, the more difficult it becomes for domestic authorities to uphold such a ruling. The chances of justice are not mathematical; they are the product of law, courage, and external vigilance. And that is precisely our task.

William Julie: Given the current political and geopolitical tensions, there is a real risk that Evgenia Gutsul, regardless of her innocence, will become a demonstrative victim of the Moldovan authorities, as a warning to supporters of Russia and as a way to show the European Union their willingness to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible and accelerate EU accession. Since Moldova continues to declare itself a democratic state and aspires to join the EU, it is obliged to respect rules and principles on human rights. Our task is to ensure that this actually happens.

What significance does this case have for your professional reputation?

Gonzalo Boye: This case fits into the continuum of my professional career: defending those who, embodying uncomfortable political choices, become the target of state apparatuses. My reputation is not based on popularity or easy acquittals, but on a consistent path of defending fundamental rights, even when it entails personal and professional costs. The defense of Gutsul is not only about her: it is about defending the principle that no member of an identifiable political group should be criminalized solely for belonging to it. Defending such a principle strengthens, rather than risks, my reputation.

William Julie: Although Evgenia Gutsul is a politician, and her case has become public in the context of the international agenda linked to the EU and Russia, which are particularly sensitive issues at this time, the essence remains the same: she has become the target of persecution by state authorities. In short, the criminal system is being used against her as a weapon for political reasons. Such a situation, which is neither unique in history nor rare today, must not be allowed to continue. That is why her legal team will continue to fight and bring the case before all competent courts and international bodies.

How do you assess the role of the media in covering this case?

Gonzalo Boye: The media has played a dual role. Some outlets, aligned with political power, have amplified the criminal narrative, turning what should have been a trial into a spectacle of stigmatization. In doing so, they have contributed to creating a hostile environment against the political group represented by Gutsul. Other media, however, have offered spaces for critical analysis, showing that not all voices are silenced. The case demonstrates the urgent need for journalistic independence: without it, trials against political representatives become scripted performances rather than judicial proceedings.

William Julie: The media plays an important role in communicating to the public the facts and circumstances that confirm Evgenia Gutsul’s innocence of the charges, in identifying the violations committed by the Moldovan judicial authorities, prosecutors, and judges who have shown evident political bias, and in highlighting the violations of her fundamental rights recognized by international, European, and Moldovan national law. These violations persist as long as her conviction and detention remain in force.

What would you like to say to society and the international community?

Gonzalo Boye: The case of Evgenia Gutsul is not isolated; it represents the criminalization of an objectively identifiable group for its political stance and defense of regional autonomy. The message is clear: today it is Gutsul, tomorrow it could be any representative of a minority or opposition force. To society I say: do not let fear or indifference normalize injustice. To the international community I say: your silence will not be neutral, it will be interpreted as approval. Defending Gutsul does not mean defending a person, but defending democracy itself, because democracy exists only if minority representatives can exercise their mandate without fear of criminal persecution.

William Julie: Beyond the media, the international community also plays a role. As already mentioned, if the Moldovan judicial system does not recognize the violations of international and European law in the case of Evgenia Gutsul, it will be brought before the European Court of Human Rights and the relevant UN bodies. At the same time, the executive bodies of existing international structures, the Council of the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the UN Security Council, are called upon to demand that the Moldovan authorities guarantee and protect her rights. In this context, society also plays a role. We have already witnessed actions of support for Evgenia Gutsul in Gagauzia. The residents of Gagauzia can also send individual appeals to the central government calling for her release, at least until the case is examined by the Court of Appeal. Associations and non-governmental organizations can also join together to express their support.

This interview was first published by Affaritaliani and was translated by the RT team 

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »