Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Australia’s “eSafety” Commissioner Holds 2,600+ Records Tracking Christian Media Outlet

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 3, 2025

Australia’s online safety regulator is refusing to process a Freedom of Information request that would expose how it has tracked the activity of a prominent Christian media outlet and its leaders, citing excessive workload as the reason for denial.

The office of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has confirmed it is holding more than 2,600 records connected to The Daily Declaration, its founding body The Canberra Declaration, and three of its editorial figures: Warwick Marsh, Samuel Hartwich, and Kurt Mahlburg.

Despite admitting the existence of these records, the agency says reviewing them would take more than 100 hours and would therefore unreasonably impact its operations.

In a formal response dated 29 September, the regulator explained that it had identified thousands of documents referencing the group and its members. “Processing a request of this size would substantially impact eSafety’s operations,” the notice read.

The documents include media monitoring reports automatically generated whenever The Daily Declaration or its editors have posted online about the regulator or been tagged in relevant conversations.

Every mention gets captured by automated tracking tools, creating a growing pile of files that the agency now claims is too large to review.

After filtering for duplicates, around 650 documents were considered potentially relevant.

Yet the agency still refused, estimating that sorting and redacting them would consume over 100 hours. That figure triggers what the law defines as a “practical refusal,” giving agencies legal cover to reject the request altogether.

Government departments are allowed to deny FOI requests if they consider them too broad or resource-heavy.

But in this case, the regulator’s own mass monitoring appears to be the reason it can now avoid public scrutiny.

A system that routinely generates digital records of online commentary is then used to block access to those very records, effectively protecting the agency from oversight.

Mahlburg, senior editor at The Daily Declaration, called out the move, saying, “The very mechanism designed to protect Australians ends up shielding the government from scrutiny.”

The Commissioner’s office has given a deadline of 13 October for the request to be narrowed.

If that does not happen, it will be treated as withdrawn, and none of the 2,600 documents will be released.

Suggested limitations include trimming the date range, excluding auto-generated reports, or focusing only on specific individuals.

Although The Daily Declaration has said it will resubmit the FOI request with a more restricted scope, the case raises broader concerns. The regulator has amassed a significant database tracking Christian organizations and individuals who speak on topics such as faith, freedom, and family.

By leaning on its own volume of monitoring data to block transparency, the agency sets a dangerous precedent.

While the public is told this is a matter of efficiency, the reality is that routine surveillance of dissenting voices is being shielded from exposure. The more the agency monitors, the easier it becomes to deny public access.

October 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | | Leave a comment

New York Imposes Law Forcing Social Media to Justify Speech Policies to State Authorities

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 3, 2025

Social media companies operating in New York are now under fresh legal obligations as the state enforces the so-called “Stop Hiding Hate Act,” a new compelled speech law that forces platforms with annual revenues exceeding $100 million to hand over detailed reports on how they handle various forms of speech, including speech that is legally protected under the First Amendment.

The legislation went into effect on October 1 and has already triggered a constitutional showdown in court.

The law, officially Senate Bill S895B, demands biannual disclosures to the state Attorney General’s office.

These reports must outline how platforms define terms such as “hate speech,” “misinformation,” “harassment,” “disinformation,” and “extremism.”

Companies are also required to explain what moderation practices they apply to those categories and to provide specifics about actions taken against users and content.

Platforms that fail to comply face penalties of up to $15,000 per violation, per day. Injunctive action can also be taken against non-compliant entities.

Attorney General Letitia James declared that the law is about transparency and oversight.

“With violence and polarization on the rise, social media companies must ensure that their platforms don’t fuel hateful rhetoric and disinformation,” she said in a public statement, reinforcing her view that private companies should be accountable to the state for how they manage user expression.

“The Stop Hiding Hate Act requires social media companies to share their content moderation policies publicly and with my office to ensure that these companies are more transparent about how they are addressing harmful content on their platforms.”

Governor Kathy Hochul voiced similar sentiments, saying the legislation “builds on our efforts to improve safety online and marks an important step to increase transparency and accountability.”

The reporting rules, however, do not simply demand that companies disclose general moderation policies. They compel platforms to state clearly how they define some of the most politically charged and subjective categories of online content. These include terms that do not have universally accepted definitions and that often serve as the basis for viewpoint discrimination.

This government demand for compelled speech is at the heart of a legal battle now playing out in federal court.

In June 2025, X Corp., the company behind the X platform, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law.

The company’s complaint argues that Senate Bill S895B is a direct assault on editorial discretion and a violation of free speech rights enshrined in both the US and New York Constitutions.

According to the complaint, the law imposes “an impermissible attempt by the State to inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process.” X warns that the statute operates as a tool to pressure platforms into adopting government-favored positions on disputed topics.

Key to X’s legal objection is what it refers to as the “Content Category Report Provisions.” These provisions, the company argues, effectively force platforms to accept the state’s framing of controversial topics, including “foreign political interference” and “hate speech,” regardless of how a private entity might choose to treat or define such categories independently.

The lawsuit also highlights the heavy financial threat tied to non-compliance, noting that fines can reach $15,000 per day for every violation. In addition, platforms could face legal action from the Attorney General’s office.

In defending its position, X Corp. references a victory it recently secured in a separate First Amendment case involving a similar law in California. There, the Ninth Circuit ruled that forced reporting of this nature likely constitutes compelled non-commercial speech and does not hold up under strict scrutiny.

The court concluded that forcing platforms to adopt state-defined language “amounts to compelled speech,” a stance X Corp. is urging the Southern District of New York to follow.

The company’s lawsuit goes a step further, pointing to legislative bias as motivation for the law’s passage.

According to the complaint, New York lawmakers refused to engage with X’s representatives in the wake of the California ruling, explicitly citing their disapproval of Elon Musk’s public statements and use of the platform.

In correspondence included in the court filing, lawmakers dismissed the company’s concerns because, in their words, Musk had used X to promote content that “threatens the foundations of our democracy.”

That remark, X argues, reveals a plainly unconstitutional motive rooted in viewpoint discrimination. “The government cannot do indirectly what [it] is barred from doing directly,” the complaint states, referencing controlling Supreme Court precedent.

Despite the ongoing litigation, New York officials are moving forward with the law’s enforcement.

Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, one of the bill’s sponsors, defended the policy as a necessary countermeasure to what he described as real and potential violence driven by online speech. “The Stop Hiding Hate Act will ensure that New Yorkers are able to know what social media companies are doing (or not doing) to stop the spread of hatred and misinformation on their platforms,” he said.

The outcome of the lawsuit could have wide-reaching implications not only for companies operating in New York but also for how much power states can exert over online speech. For now, platforms face a stark choice: speak as the state demands or risk steep penalties for silence.

October 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

US deploys abortion law against Israel critics who picketed synagogue

RT | October 1, 2025

The US Justice Department has filed a civil lawsuit against several anti-Israeli protesters, using a law historically applied to protect women entering abortion clinics from pro-life demonstrators.

The complaint, filed on Monday by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, could mark the first of more cases to come, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said at a press conference. She argued that the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) was previously “weaponized” against pro-life activists, while those disrupting religious practices were not targeted.

The case stems from a November 2024 incident in West Orange, New Jersey. Congregation Ohr Torah synagogue was hosting a real estate fair promoting the sale of homes in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. The DOJ maintains that it was “a religious event centered on the Jewish obligation to live in the Land of Israel.”

Around 50 pro-Palestinian demonstrators staged a protest outside, which Dhillon characterized as a “mob.” An altercation broke out involving organizer Moshe Glick and his associate, David Silberberg. The complaint claims that one protester blasted a vuvuzela horn inches from Glick’s ear, an action prosecutors say amounted to a “physical attack” due to potential hearing damage.

Local media reported in February that Glick and Silberberg were charged in connection with the brawl after Glick allegedly pepper-sprayed a protester and struck his head with a metal flashlight. The DOJ complaint, however, described these actions as self-defense. One of the named defendants is accused of choking Silberberg and tackling him to the ground.

The fair was one of several US events promoting settlement property sales that drew pro-Palestinian protests as Israel pressed its military operation in Gaza. Jewish settlements in occupied territories are considered illegal under international law and remain a flashpoint in the broader Middle East conflict.

Enforcement of the FACE Act was reportedly scaled back early in US President Donald Trump’s term in office. In June, the House Judiciary Committee considered a bill introduced this year by Representative Chip Roy to repeal the measure entirely.

October 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

The Real Jan. 6th Coup

By Ron Paul | September 29, 2025

In my first column after the events of Jan. 6th, 2021, I criticized those who called the protest a “coup,” pointing out that, “Some of the same politicians and bureaucrats denouncing the ridiculous farce at the Capitol as if it were the equivalent of 9/11 have been involved for decades in planning and executing real coups overseas. In their real coups, many thousands of civilians have died.”

The media at the time played up the violence committed by a relative few at the protest to stoke a national outcry and demands for “justice.” More than 1,500 Americans were charged over the incident and nearly 500 were imprisoned, including outrageous prison sentences for relatively minor crimes like entering the Capitol building through doors opened by the police, and filming the event.

While most Democrats and Republicans in Congress harshly denounced the January 6th “insurrectionists,” a few Members displayed the appropriate skepticism over accepted government narratives. Rep. Thomas Massie, for example, was relentless in his search for answers to a simple but critically important question: How many of the “insurrectionists” were actually undercover FBI agents and other law enforcement officers and what role might they have played in inciting the violence.

Massie grilled then-Attorney General Merrick Garland several times, but Garland would not budge. He refused to say whether there had been any undercover federal agents in the crowd, though of course he must have known.

Last week we learned a little more of the truth. With the release of the FBI’s long lost “after action” report, we now know that more than 250 undercover agents were in the crowd. According to the report, they were given roles including crowd control that they were not suited for. Some agents cited in the report complained of political biases in the Bureau against conservatives. What other tasks might have been given to a “politicized” FBI undercover team?

In addition to the undercover agents, there were more than two dozen paid informants in the Jan. 6th crowd. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the subcommittee investigating the matter, asks an important question: “With that many paid informants being in the crowd, we want to know how many were in the crowd, how many were in the building, but I also want to know, were they paid to inform or instigate?”

Were they paid to inform, or to instigate? That is a good question. We do know that the event was used by the incoming Biden Administration to demonize and persecute the political opposition. There is no telling how many Americans would have liked to use their First Amendment guarantee of free speech to criticize the Biden Administration but were silenced by fear of persecution, or worse. It’s easy to conclude, seeing so many arrested and handed long sentences for non-violent “crimes,” that it’s better to keep quiet. At the time, the US was still in the grip of Covid tyranny, where speaking out against “the Science” could get you “cancelled” or worse. This was another way to silence people who were not “going along with the program.”

In the end, January 6th, 2021, was a coup of sorts. It was a coup against the First Amendment. The lesson for all of us is that if we do not regularly but peacefully exercise our First Amendment guarantees we will definitely lose them, regardless of who is in power.

September 30, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Brussels finds a way to bypass Orbán’s veto on initiation of EU accession talks

Remix News | September 30, 2025

European Council President António Costa has proposed how to bypass Hungary’s veto and advance EU accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova.

Current rules mandate that all 27 EU member states approve each stage of the accession process. Costa’s proposal would allow a qualified majority vote to open so-called negotiating clusters for the two countries, notes Hirado, citing an article by Politico.

However, despite this move speeding up the accession process, final accession approval would still require unanimity.

Guillaume Mercier, the European Commission’s spokesperson for enlargement, said on Monday: “The possibility of the Council deciding by qualified majority on certain intermediate steps in the enlargement process would be worth exploring.”

This would help candidate countries, such as Ukraine and Moldova, to start the necessary reforms to align with EU standards, even if one or two member states officially oppose the start of negotiations.

EU diplomats say Costa’s proposal would offer a way to overcome Viktor Orbán’s repeated vetoes. “When a country is obstructed without any objective reason, despite fulfilling the criteria, the credibility of the entire enlargement process is at risk,” Mercier said.

Regarding “no objective reason,” however, is questionable, as Orbán has offered plenty of reasons. Notably, Ukraine is still at war, and even if the war should end, may be threatened with war once again in the future. Furthermore, Ukraine, even before the war, was rated as the most corrupt country in Europe, and since the war, corruption has only grown worse. Rebuilding the country is also expected to take hundreds of billions of euros, which EU taxpayers will increasingly be on the hook for if Ukraine joins the EU.

Costa nevertheless added, “It is really up to the Member States to decide on the next steps and we hope to open the first cluster soon.”

As Hirado notes, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has also strongly supported extending qualified majority voting in certain areas such as foreign policy, ​​but she has also clearly indicated that it could benefit other areas as well.

Asked whether EU enlargement could fall into this category, Paula Pinho, the Commission’s senior spokeswoman, responded on Monday: “That could indeed be examined.”

September 30, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , | Leave a comment

Kiev wants Western platforms to enforce Ukrainization – official

RT | September 29, 2025

Ukraine is pressuring major Western media platforms such as YouTube and Spotify to adjust their recommendation algorithms to reduce the amount of Russian-language material shown to Ukrainian users, Kiev’s language ombudsman revealed in interview published on Monday.

Speaking to RBC-Ukraine, Elena Ivanovskaya claimed that Russian content “is not just entertainment, it’s a soft power that subliminally affects consciousness, normalizes aggression, [and] deludes identity.”

She argued that when platforms recommend Russian songs or TV series to Ukrainians, “it is not a choice, but manipulation,” and called for policies ensuring that “Russian products do not sound in the background and form unconscious habits.”

Recommendation algorithms typically maximize user engagement by promoting content popular or trending within a demographic group to users from the same group. Ivanovskaya said that allowing this to favor Russian media undermines Ukraine’s cultural identity.

Since the 2014 Western-backed armed coup in Kiev, Ukrainian authorities have pursued policies aimed at reducing the use of Russian – a language spoken by much of the population – in public life. Laws require Ukrainian in media, education, and commerce, and officials have nudged citizens to use Ukrainian in private settings as well.

Ivanovskaya said her office is encouraging parents to raise their children speaking Ukrainian because “if the mom puts the ‘shackles of the Russian language’ on her kid, removing them later would be difficult.” The state, she said, must be “uncompromising,” not only opposing Russian content, but also “going on the offensive by supporting the Ukrainian product,” so that “every sphere of life is made pro-Ukrainian through a concise, deliberate legislative effort.”

She rejected accusations of censorship, insisting Ukrainians have “made their civilizational choice,” while acknowledging that Russian-language use has recently increased.

Moscow has accused Kiev of attempting to eradicate Russian culture and says ending such discriminative policies is one of its key objectives in the ongoing conflict.

September 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Made in Brussels: How Moldova’s elections were engineered beyond its borders

From censorship to selective polling stations, Chisinau’s parliamentary race exposed how “European standards” work in practice

By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | September 29, 2025

In recent European history, it is difficult to find a more striking example of electoral manipulation than the 2025 parliamentary elections in Moldova. What last year’s presidential race tested in miniature, this campaign deployed on a grand scale: censorship, administrative pressure, selective access to polling stations, and a carefully mobilized diaspora vote. For President Maia Sandu’s administration, control over parliament was not a matter of prestige but of political survival.

The campaign atmosphere was defined long before voting day. Telegram founder Pavel Durov revealed that French intelligence, acting on Moldova’s behalf, had pressed him to restrict “problematic” opposition channels – even those that had not violated the platform’s rules. Their only offense was providing an alternative viewpoint. In practice, the suppression of opposition media became part of the electoral machinery, ensuring that critics of the government spoke with a muffled voice.

Election night only reinforced doubts. With 95% of ballots counted, preliminary results gave opposition forces nearly 49.5% of the vote, while Sandu’s Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) trailed by about five points. By morning, however, the tables had turned: PAS had surged past 50%. Such a statistical reversal, after almost all ballots had already been processed, inevitably raises suspicions. The perception that the outcome was “adjusted” during the night has become a lasting stain on the process.

Geography of disenfranchisement

Outside Moldova’s borders, the picture was equally telling. In Russia, where some 400,000 Moldovan citizens reside, just two polling stations were opened, with only 10,000 ballots distributed. Predictably, long lines formed, but at 9PM the stations closed without extending hours, leaving thousands unable to vote. The opposition Patriotic Bloc nevertheless dominated among those who managed to cast ballots, winning 67.4%.

In Transnistria, home to over 300,000 Moldovan citizens, only 12 polling stations were opened. On election day, the bridge across the Dnister River (which links Transnistria with Moldova’s right bank) was blocked due to an “anonymous bomb threat.” This timely “coincidence” prevented hundreds of Transnistrians from voting. Ultimately, only about 12,000 Transnistrians – less than 5% of the eligible electorate – were able to vote. Yet even under these restrictions, the Patriotic Bloc secured 51%.

By contrast, the authorities ensured maximum accessibility in the European Union. Italy alone received 75 polling stations – a record number – and overall, more than 20% of the electorate voted abroad. Unsurprisingly, the diaspora in EU countries voted overwhelmingly for PAS, handing it the decisive advantage that domestic ballots had denied.

International monitoring was similarly selective. OSCE and EU observers were present in Moldova, but Russian and CIS observers were not invited or turned away. Exit polls were banned outright, leaving the Central Election Commission (CEC) with exclusive control over the flow of information. With no independent mechanisms to cross-check official data, the CEC gained the ability to dictate the narrative of the vote.

Opposition under pressure

The campaign’s repressive character was most vividly illustrated just before election day. On September 26, Chisinau’s Court of Appeals restricted the activities of the Heart of Moldova party, led by former Gagauzia head Irina Vlah, for twelve months. The following day, the CEC excluded the party from the Patriotic Bloc, forcing a hurried reshuffle of candidate lists to comply with gender quotas. Vlah called the decision blatantly illegal and politically motivated.

This was no isolated case. Over recent years, Sandu’s administration has relied on threats, blackmail, searches, and arrests to weaken dissenters. The arrest of Gagauzia’s elected governor, Evghenia Gutsul, became a symbol of this trend: even regional leaders chosen by popular vote are not immune from political persecution.

Domestic minority, overseas majority

The official tally put voter turnout at 52.18%. PAS won 50.2% of the vote, the Patriotic Bloc 24.2%, the pro-European Alternative 8%, Our Party 6.2%, and Democracy at Home 5.6%, while several minor parties failed to gain more than 1%. On paper, PAS secured a majority.

But a closer look reveals a striking imbalance. Counting only ballots cast inside Moldova, PAS received just 44.13% of the vote. The opposition parties together accounted for nearly 50%. In other words, within Moldova itself, Sandu’s party was in the minority.

It was the diaspora vote that changed everything. Among Moldovans abroad, 78.5% supported PAS, enough to flip a domestic defeat into a formal victory. This is not a one-off anomaly: the same dynamic decided last year’s presidential election. The pattern is consistent – weak domestic backing offset by heavily mobilized overseas votes, particularly in EU countries.

The binary narrative

The Western media rushed to celebrate Sandu’s win as a “victory over Russia.” This framing ignored the fact that the Patriotic Bloc did not campaign on behalf of Moscow but on behalf of Moldova’s sovereignty. Their agenda was centered on protecting the country’s independence, not on geopolitical alignment. Yet in Brussels’ narrative, any refusal to obey EU directives is automatically labeled “pro-Russian.”

The same binary logic has been applied to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico. Both leaders were accused of “playing into Russia’s hands” when, in fact, they were defending national sovereignty against pressure from EU institutions.

Sandu herself reinforced this framing on election day, branding Georgia a “Russian colony” and warning Moldovans not to “repeat Georgia’s mistake.”

The rhetoric revealed more anxiety than confidence. It echoed the final years of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who relied on bombast, foreign backers, and provocations while losing touch with his own electorate. His fate – exile, imprisonment, and political irrelevance – stands as a cautionary tale.

A managed democracy

Taken together, these facts paint a picture of a managed democracy: censorship of opposition voices, selective access to polling stations, politically motivated repression, and the decisive use of diaspora votes. Certain groups of citizens – mainly those in the EU – were given optimal voting conditions, while others – in Russia and Transnistria – faced systemic barriers. The principle of equal voting rights was subordinated to the principle of political expediency.

The paradox of Moldova’s elections is therefore clear. Inside the country, a majority voted for change. Abroad, a different electorate delivered Sandu her “victory.” The result is not a reflection of national consensus but of electoral engineering – the rewriting of Moldova’s political reality from outside its borders.

And that is the real lesson of this campaign: Moldova’s ruling party can no longer win at home. Its victories are manufactured elsewhere. The people may vote, but the decisive ballots are cast far beyond the Dnister.

Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.

September 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Leave a comment

Hundreds of Thousands of Moldovans Were Barred From Voting – Kremlin

Sputnik – 29.09.2025

Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov stated that hundreds of thousands of Moldovan citizens were deprived of the opportunity to take part in Moldova’s parliamentary elections on Russian territory.

“From what we see and know, we can state that hundreds of thousands of Moldovans were unable to vote in the Russian Federation, as only two polling stations were opened for them. This was, of course, insufficient and could not provide the opportunity for all those willing to cast their ballots,” Peskov told reporters.

Moldova held parliamentary elections on Sunday. The parliament consists of 101 seats. Both President Maia Sandu’s ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) and the opposition attach great importance to the elections, as parliament in Moldova influences the formation of the cabinet of ministers and the judiciary.

During the elections, the number of polling stations in Russia and Transnistria was reduced, making it difficult for Moldovans in those regions to cast their votes for the opposition. At the same time, the number of polling stations in Europe was significantly increased — 301 in total — in order to rely on the votes of the European diaspora.

Earlier, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that, according to Moldovans themselves, this electoral campaign was the most anti-democratic in the entire 34 years of the republic’s independence.

Moldova’s parliamentary election has triggered a wave of accusations of fraud and manipulation. Opposition parties and observers reported that Maia Sandu’s ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) engaged in administrative pressure, the removal of popular candidates, intimidation of voters, and restrictions on polling in Transnistria. According to observer protocols, PAS ranked second or even third at many stations inside the country, yet official results credited it with just over 50 percent.

Vote counting, formally concluded by midnight, continued throughout the night — fueling suspicions that protocols were rewritten in the ruling party’s favor. Additional reports highlighted the expulsion of observers, threats of “bombings” used to close polling sites, and hundreds of searches and arrests of opposition representatives on the eve of voting.

Foreign polling stations drew particular criticism. In Italy, France, Germany, and Romania, ballot boxes were reportedly nearly full within the first hour of voting, with videos circulating of the same groups casting ballots multiple times. Il Giornale d’Italia published evidence of ballot-stuffing and voter transport schemes allegedly organized in PAS’s interest, while Moldovan security services were said to operate at overseas sites. In Transnistria, 362,000 eligible voters were allocated only 20,000 ballots and 12 polling stations, compared to 301 for Europe, leaving fewer than 5 percent able to vote. Meanwhile, opposition parties such as “Heart of Moldova” and “Great Moldova” were struck from the race days before the election, reinforcing accusations that the process was neither free nor fair.

September 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Moldovan Opposition Rejects Election Results, Vows Appeals and Protests

Sputnik – 29.09.2025

The Moldovan opposition does not recognize the results of the recent parliamentary elections and will appeal them in both national and international institutions, Ilan Shor, the leader of the Pobeda (Victory) opposition bloc, said on Monday.

“We will appeal to both national and international institutions,” Shor told the Rossiya 24 broadcaster.

The opposition does not recognize the results of the elections, Shor also said, adding that the Pobeda bloc will call on the population of Moldova to protest, which could happen in the coming days.

“Ten, fifteen, twenty percent of people were deliberately intimidated to prevent them from going to the polls,” Shor added.

When asked about the prospects of cooperation with former Moldovan President Igor Dodon, a leader of the opposition Patriotic Electoral Bloc, Shor said that the Pobeda bloc will join all political forces in the country that will “fight to overthrow the regime” of President Maia Sandu.

September 29, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Leave a comment

THE ATTACK ON GEORGE AND GAYATRI GALLOWAY

PARTY STATEMENT ON CENSORSHIP AND INTIMIDATION 

Workers Party of Britain | September 28, 2025

Our party believes in freedom of speech and defends the Rights won by our parents, grandparents and previous generations that allow us to speak our minds and challenge those in power. British people are proud of their freedoms.

In recent years these freedoms have been eroded. It has gone too far.

Our Party Leader George Galloway and Deputy Chair of our Members Council Gayatri Galloway were yesterday detained and denied legal services whilst held at Gatwick airport.

Neither under arrest nor allowed to leave, the Workers Party was prevented from providing legal support as officers seized personal items.

In recent months our One State Palestine (https://t.me/OneStatePalestine) and No 2 NATO (https://t.me/no2nato) campaigns have both been banned from X and suppressed on other platforms. In recent years our meetings have been cancelled, even at so-called free speech venues like Conway Hall.

During election campaigning our members have been physically assaulted, suffered hit and run attacks and abuse. All of this is documented in the press and known to the police.

We are not unique. From the Right and Left individuals and organisations of all types face censorship and intimidation. The only people left alone are the extreme liberals who seek to police everything, even the English language.

No matter what they do, the ruling elite cannot stop the forward march of history. Russia has won in Ukraine, China has won the technology race, Israel is exposed as a genocidal outpost of the old colonial world.

Britain needs to replace those who seek to censor and intimidate us. We need working class leaders who can chart a new peaceful path of development.

If you agree, you should join,

👍 https://www.workerspartygb.org/join

📱 Subscribe here https://t.me/workerspartybritain

September 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Video | , | Leave a comment

How to run an election, pro-EU edition: ban the party, jail the governor, block the observers

RT | September 27, 2025

Moldova goes to the polls this Sunday in what officials in Chișinău and Brussels have called a “milestone on the European path.” Yet with opposition parties banned, observers blocked, and voters in key regions sidelined, the election looks less like a democratic contest and more like a forced pro-EU outcome.

Watchdogs can’t watch

The Moldovan Central Election Commission (CEC) this week denied accreditation to more than 30 international organizations and 120 observers from over 50 countries. Among those barred were Russian experts nominated to the OSCE’s official mission – a first in European electoral practice.

Moldova’s foreign ministry claimed the decision was taken “in line with national law.” The Patriotic Bloc, an opposition alliance, accused the authorities of deliberately creating an observer blackout. Its lawyers listed applications from reputable NGOs in Italy, Germany, France, Spain and the US that were ignored or rejected.

Moscow has called the move a “blatant breach” of OSCE commitments and summoned Moldova’s ambassador. The EU, usually vocal and critical of democracy standards in the region, has remained conspicuously silent.

Parties erased by decree

Elections are meant to let citizens decide. In Moldova, key players were simply removed from the ballot.

• On September 26, two days before the election, the Heart of Moldova party was suspended for 12 months by court order, accused of money laundering and illicit campaign finance. The CEC struck all Heart of Moldova candidates from the Patriotic Bloc’s list. Its leader, former Gagauzia governor Irina Vlah, called it “a political spectacle.”

• The same day, the CEC barred the Great Moldova party, led by Victoria Furtuna, citing undeclared foreign funding and links to the already banned SOR party. Furtuna had already been sanctioned by the EU in July for receiving support from fugitive oligarch Ilan Șor.

• In June 2023, the SOR Party itself, led by exiled businessman Ilan Shor, was dissolved by the Constitutional Court, accused of corruption and “threatening Moldova’s sovereignty.” Pro-EU Moldovan President Maia Sandu celebrated the ban as a victory against “a party created out of corruption and for corruption.” Opposition leaders called it the end of pluralism.

The bans come on top of sweeping new laws rushed through parliament this summer, allowing the government to strike “successor parties” of banned groups from the ballot and to bar their members from holding office for five years. The Venice Commission and OSCE warned such blanket exclusions could violate basic political rights.

Rivals under investigation, in exile or behind bars

Even where parties survive, their leaders have been sidelined.

• Igor Dodon, Moldovan president from 2016 to 2020, remains under criminal investigation for treason, illicit enrichment and the notorious “kuliok” bribery case. He claims the charges are fabricated, but has been under house arrest for much of the past two years.

• Marina Tauber, vice-chair of the outlawed SOR Party, is being tried in absentia after fleeing to Moscow in early 2025. Prosecutors are seeking a 13-year sentence for fraud and money laundering. Tauber insists the trial is political revenge for her role in anti-Sandu protests.

• Evghenia Gutsul, elected governor of the autonomous Gagauzia in 2023, was sentenced in August to seven years in prison for allegedly funneling Russian funds to the SOR Party. Her supporters protested outside the Chișinău courthouse as she declared the verdict “a sentence not on me, but on Moldovan democracy.” Russia called her jailing politically motivated; the EU has stayed silent.

With opposition leaders jailed, exiled or under investigation, Sandu’s PAS faces little organized challenge at the ballot box.

Transnistrian voters pushed aside

For Moldovan citizens in the breakaway region of Transnistria, the chance to vote has been slashed. In 2021, over 40 polling stations were opened for residents east of the Dniester. This year, just 12 stations were approved – all on government-controlled land, many kilometers from the demarcation line.

Days before the election, the CEC even relocated four of those sites further inland, citing security threats. The Interior Ministry warned of possible bomb scares and provocations in the “security zone.”

Critics call it voter suppression. Russia’s ambassador Oleg Ozerov described the changes as “unprecedented,” noting they were announced less than 48 hours before election day. Transnistrian authorities accused Chișinău of deliberately reducing turnout in a region that leans heavily toward opposition parties.

By contrast, more than 300 polling stations were opened abroad, including 73 in Italy, where the Moldovan diaspora numbers some 100,000, and only 2 in Russia, where the diaspora size is similar – a disparity that hints at the government’s priorities.

Democracy by emergency decree

This is not the first time Sandu’s government has pushed democratic boundaries. Since 2022, PAS has ruled under a rolling state of emergency, citing Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. Using these powers, the government shut down six television channels accused of spreading Russian propaganda, blocked Russian journalists from entering, and passed 13 laws tightening control over parties and candidates.

Reporters Without Borders and the OSCE have flagged concerns about media freedom and selective application of the law.

Brussels applauds, critics protest

Brussels has consistently praised Sandu’s government, calling Moldova “a success story” and advancing its bid for EU membership. Just this week, EU officials accused Moscow of “deeply interfering” in the elections through disinformation and illicit funding.

But inside Moldova, the picture looks different: courts have been turned into campaign tools, whole parties have been erased, governors jailed, observers turned away. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has called for an “inclusive and fair” process for all citizens – diplomatic language for “don’t tilt the table.” The Venice Commission cautioned against blanket bans that undermine the right to be elected.

The bottom line

The vote is supposed to be about Moldova’s future, yet so much of the present has been quietly erased. The rivals that might have challenged PAS are gone, some behind bars, some in exile. The voters in Transnistria who might have shifted the balance face fewer polling stations than ever before. Even the observers whose job is to watch have been turned away. The EU will describe it as progress, a sign of a candidate state finding its democratic feet.

Inside Moldova, many see something else entirely: a coronation disguised as a contest, the latest act in a story where the script was written long before election day.

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »