Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Poland police state: Conservative MP who waived his immunity was arrested on Friday in dramatic fashion

Remix News – March 10, 2025

Remix News reported last week that on Wednesday, Polish Law and Justice (PiS) MP Dariusz Matecki announced that he was waiving his parliamentary immunity in the face of charges that were being made against him by the Prosecutor’s Office, saying that MPs should not be above the people. He made the announcement in a speech he gave in English before the Sejm, proclaiming his innocence while dramatically wearing handcuffs.

Matecki claimed that he was being persecuted as part of the ruling coalition’s revenge against the opposition. On Thursday, the Sejm approved his arrest and temporary detention.

Matecki has been charged with being fictitiously employed at the Regional Directorate of the State Forests in Szczecin from 2020 to 2023, defrauding state-owned companies of PLN 320,000 (approximately €77,000), and other forms of corruption.

The MP was detained and taken into custody by officers of the Internal Security Agency on Friday morning while en route to the Prosecutor’s Office to turn himself in, according to a report by Do Rzeczy. His arrest was quite dramatic, with officers stopping his car and pulling him out of it in the middle of traffic on a busy street.

The MP was charged with six criminal counts, which together could lead to up to 10 years in prison if he is convicted. Matecki has never before been charged with any crime and maintains his innocence.

Besides Matecki’s own arrest, his wife’s apartment was also searched by the authorities. PiS condemned what they referred to as the state’s efforts to intimidate his family.

On Friday afternoon, Przemysław Nowak, the spokesman for the Prosecutor’s Office, announced that the court had ordered Matecki to be detained for a period of two months.

Kacper Stukan, Matecki’s attorney, announced that he would be filing a complaint against the court’s decision. He explained that his client’s arrest was unnecessary given that there was no flight risk in his case.

Polish Minister of Justice Adam Bodnar ominously took to X to share a copy of the order for Matecki’s arrest with the heading, “To be continued . . .”

Donald Tusk’s left-liberal Civic Coalition government has frequently used the law to punish those associated with the country’s previous right-wing ruling coalition since coming to power in late 2023. Dozens of PiS politicians have been charged with crimes, and two other PiS MPs, Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik, were arrested on corruption charges that they had previously been pardoned for. Both have been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for “abuse of power.”

Similarly, former Deputy Minister of Justice Marcin Romanowski was charged with 11 counts of corruption. He fled to Hungary and was granted asylum there, which has led to tensions between the two governments.

March 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Leave a comment

Romania: Călin Georgescu’s presidential candidacy rejection sparks mass protests and international condemnation

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | March 10, 2025

The Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) rejected the candidacy of Călin Georgescu in Romania’s upcoming presidential elections on Sunday evening. The decision, taken with 10 votes in favor out of the 14-member committee, has ignited widespread protests and drawn sharp international criticism.

Shortly after the announcement, demonstrators gathered outside the BEC headquarters in Bucharest, expressing outrage at what they labeled a “theft of democracy.” Supporters of Georgescu clashed with police, waved national flags, and chanted slogans calling for a “revolution.” Law enforcement officers used tear gas to disperse protesters who attempted to force their way into the institution. Several individuals were arrested in the ensuing confrontations.

Marius Militaru, a spokesperson for the Gendarmerie, stated that authorities were “trying to relax the atmosphere through dialogue” and that the situation was under control.

The BEC cited a missing signature on an annex of Georgescu’s declaration of wealth as the reason for his disqualification. Former Constitutional Court judge Tudorel Toader clarified that the annexes are a mandatory component of the documentation and that both substantive and procedural requirements must be met.

Despite the setback, Georgescu retains the option to challenge the decision at the Constitutional Court. If he secures a favorable ruling, he could regain his candidacy, making the upcoming days crucial for his political future.

It is understood that Georgescu has 24 hours to appeal, and any final decision must be made within 48 hours.

Taking to social media, Georgescu condemned the BEC’s decision as an attack on democracy.

“A direct blow to the heart of democracy worldwide! I have one message left! If democracy in Romania falls, the entire democratic world will fall! This is just the beginning. It’s that simple! Europe is now a dictatorship, Romania is under tyranny!” he wrote.

His rejection follows his recent arrest amid an investigation into alleged extremism, a move that had already drawn concern from high-profile figures.

The decision has provoked strong reactions from European and international political figures, some of whom have accused the European Union of political interference in Romania’s democratic process.

Matteo Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister and leader of the right-wing Lega party, condemned the rejection, stating: “A Soviet-style Euro-coup. First, they annul the elections he was winning, then they arrest him, and now they exclude him entirely for fear that he will win. Rather than ‘rearm Europe,’ we must refound it to defend democracy.”

U.S. billionaire Elon Musk, a senior adviser to the Trump administration, also weighed in, calling the situation “crazy” and amplifying claims that “Europe has cancelled more elections than Russia.”

Santiago Abascal, leader of Spain’s Vox party, expressed solidarity with Georgescu and Romania’s right-wing Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) party, accusing “Brussels’ bureaucratic pressure” of being exerted to block his candidacy.

George Simion, president of the AUR, claimed the decision was overtly political with all commission members affiliated with the governing parties voting against Georgescu’s candidacy.

“It was rejected without any reason. All the papers were in good order. We live in a dictatorship. Please help us. Please be on our side to restore democracy in Romania,” Simion implored.

Georgescu previously won the first round of presidential elections before they were controversially annulled last year. His arrest last week — while en route to submit his candidacy — raised further suspicions about the state of democracy in Romania.

March 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

CHD, Doctors Ask Supreme Court to Hear Medical Free Speech Case

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |March 6, 2025

Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Physicians for Informed Consent and a group of doctors who sued the Medical Board of California after it disciplined them for allegedly spreading COVID-19 “misinformation” have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case.

The plaintiffs in Kory v. Bonta submitted their petition on March 1, following the November 2024 dismissal of their case by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is named in the suit, along with the state’s medical board.

The lawsuit, filed in January 2024, is a follow-up to a previous complaint filed in 2022 and an amended suit filed in 2023, which challenged California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2098 — a law allowing the medical board to discipline doctors who give “false” information about COVID-19 for engaging in unprofessional conduct.

A federal judge blocked AB 2098 in January 2023, and the law was later repealed. However, according to the lawsuit, the Medical Board of California is still targeting “COVID misinformation” and is threatening physicians with disciplinary action.

Three medical professionals — Dr. Brian Tyson, a board-certified family practitioner who owns an urgent care facility; Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, a pediatric osteopathic physician; and Dr. Pierre Kory, president emeritus of the Independent Medical Alliance, launched the lawsuit.

According to the petition to the Supreme Court, the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, “with the assistance of the California Legislature,” have threatened disciplinary actions against the plaintiffs and other physicians for offering information to patients that departs from official COVID-19 narratives.

In April 2024, a federal district court rejected the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against the medical board. The 9th Circuit upheld the ruling in November 2024. In January, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ emergency application for an injunction.

Lawsuit hopes to set precedent that ‘informed consent is free speech’

The case seeks to resolve contradictory precedents from two federal appeals courts on whether the First Amendment protects physicians’ communications to patients — “a question that is particularly significant in a field like medicine, where scientific understanding is continually advancing and rarely settled.”

In a Physicians for Informed Consent press release, Rick Jaffe, who represents the plaintiffs, said the lawsuit “touches on the foundational rights of professionals to share knowledge and opinions essential for patient autonomy and informed consent.”

Tyson said patients cannot provide informed consent if their physicians are denied the opportunity to speak freely.

“We want doctors and all providers to be able to discuss risks and benefits with our patients, be able to speak out against things that are wrong, and be heard when breakthroughs are made,” Tyson said. “The hope is the Supreme Court will set the precedent that informed consent is free speech.”

Supreme Court asked to decide between competing legal precedents

According to the petition, federal courts have established competing legal precedents relating to medical free speech.

In a 2022 decision in Tingley v. Ferguson, the 9th Circuit upheld the ability of professional boards in Washington to restrict members’ speech, arguing this is similar to the boards’ enforcement of “other restrictions on unprofessional conduct.”

But in a 2020 decision in Otto v. City of Boca Raton, the 11th Circuit struck down local ordinances that limited the speech of therapists and counselors, finding that such content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions violate the First Amendment, which has no carveout for controversial speech.

Tyson said the California Medical Board’s disciplinary proceedings against him jeopardized his career. “I had to defend my position against the [board] and almost lost my license … That would have been devastating to the community I serve and to all those I employ.”

Jaffe said Kory v. Bonta is similar to another First Amendment case relating to medical speech, Stockton v. Ferguson. Filed in March 2024, the lawsuit seeks “to protect the right of physicians to speak” and the public’s right to hear such speech.

CHD is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, as are several doctors facing disciplinary proceedings by the Washington Medical Commission for their public statements criticizing mainstream COVID-19 narratives. Basketball legend John Stockton is also a plaintiff, advocating for the public’s right to access and listen to “soapbox speech.”

In January, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ emergency appeal in Stockton v. Ferguson. The case remains active before the 9th Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 14, Jaffe said.

“The two cases represent the entire spectrum of cases involving what physicians say and would allow the court to give a definitive and comprehensive answer to whether and how much the First Amendment protects professionals when they communicate to patients and the public,” Jaffe said.

According to Physicians for Informed Consent, four justices must agree before the full court can hear Kory v. Bonta. If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, it will hear Kory v. Bonta in October.

Jaffe said the Supreme Court may ultimately jointly consider Kory v. Bonta and Stockton v. Ferguson. He credited CHD with its role in supporting both cases.

“We hope to establish the constitutional right of healthcare providers to speak out against the prevailing medical and scientific consensus about COVID-19, as well as whatever public health challenges face the country in the future,” Jaffe said.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

March 9, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

St. Louis Schools Ordered to Pay $90,000 Each to Two Employees in COVID Vaccine Mandate Suit

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 7, 2025

A federal court on Thursday awarded $90,000 each to two former St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) employees who sued the school district after their requests for a religious exemption to the district’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate were denied, St. Louis Today reported.

The two employees were among 43 plaintiffs who sued the district in June 2022, alleging the schools violated their First Amendment rights and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment and federal and state civil rights law.

Two other employees reached settlements with the district last month for undisclosed amounts. In July 2024, four employees received settlements of $25,000 each.

According to St. Louis Today, 35 other employees are engaged in mediation talks with SLPS. If those talks break down, a jury trial will follow.

In August 2021, St. Louis Public Schools announced the district’s vaccine mandate, which took effect on Oct. 15, 2021.

According to the policy, medical exemption requests would be considered “on a case-by-case basis” and the schools would offer “reasonable accommodations, absent undue hardship, to employees with sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices that conflict with getting vaccinated.”

Fox 2 St. Louis reported in August 2021 that the school’s employees were required to get the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine as it was the only fully licensed vaccine available.

According to St. Louis Today, 96% of employees complied with the mandate. However, according to a November 2021 Fox 2 St. Louis report, 47 unvaccinated employees — including 44 teachers, two custodians and a secretary — were placed on unpaid administrative leave and one principal resigned in opposition to the policy.

Restrictions infringing constitutional rights ‘spread across the country like a virus’

In June 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled in favor of the 43 employees who sued SLPS, opening the door for the employees to pursue settlements with the district.

According to Bloomberg Law, the court found that the employees had grounds to pursue most of their claims.

In its ruling, the court found the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient grounds to pursue their First Amendment and Equal Protection claims and their claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Missouri Human Rights Act.

“The District’s alleged Policy put Plaintiffs to a choice: compromise their convictions or lose their livelihoods,” U.S. Chief District Judge Stephen R. Clark wrote. “Restrictions impermissibly infringing on constitutional rights, like the right to freely exercise one’s religion, spread across the country like a virus.”

According to the ruling, while SLPS “granted the majority” of medical and disability exemption requests, it “categorically denied” all of the approximately 150-200 religious exemption requests it received, “apparently without the benefit of individualized review” — despite the district’s promises that all such requests would be reviewed.

“After submitting requests, Plaintiffs received substantially identical ‘Religious Vaccine Exemption Response’ letters in September of 2021,” the ruling stated. SLPS “eventually suspended without pay and/or terminated between 100 and 127 of those who applied for a religious exemption.”

However, in January 2022, the school district “changed course” according to the ruling and granted “most” of the previously submitted religious exemption requests, reinviting most of the employees who had previously been suspended or fired.

According to the ruling, SLPS argued that it could not accommodate the religious exemption requests because unvaccinated employees who came into close contact with a person infected with COVID-19 would have to quarantine for 14 days.

“But when the District suspended and/or terminated over 100 employees en masse for refusing the vaccine, the District may have imposed on itself a staff shortage of a worse nature than the one it sought to avoid in the first place,” the ruling stated.

The November 2021 Fox 2 St. Louis report quoted an unnamed school employee who said the remaining staff faced a “lot of added stress … because we are missing so many people.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Several other lawsuits have successfully challenged denials of religious exemptions

The settlements are the latest in a string of recent successes for plaintiffs across the U.S. who sued their employers for denying their religious exemption requests.

In November 2024, a federal jury in Detroit awarded nearly $12.7 million to a Catholic woman who sued her former employer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, after she was fired in 2022 for refusing on religious grounds to get a COVID-19 shot.

In August 2024, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of a former Philadelphia assistant district attorney who said she was wrongfully denied a religious exemption for the COVID-19 vaccine and was subsequently fired when she didn’t get vaccinated.

In June 2024, a federal grand jury in Tennessee decided in favor of a former BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee scientist who refused the COVID-19 shot, citing her religious beliefs. The jury awarded her $687,240 in back pay and damages.

In at least 10 other rulings last year, federal appellate courts ruled in favor of plaintiffs who had been denied religious exemptions by their employers.

More such lawsuits are in progress, including a lawsuit in Massachusetts by a former Tufts Medical Center emergency room doctor who refused the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds, and a lawsuit in Oregon involving over 60 former employees of Asante who were fired after their religious exemption requests were denied.

A survey conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania in January found that public support in the U.S. for religious exemptions nearly doubled over the last six years.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

March 9, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Trump cuts $400 million to Columbia Uni. over pro-Palestine protests

Al Mayadeen | March 8, 2025

US Federal Authorities announced on Friday a cut in grants and contracts with Columbia University in New York, citing pro-Palestine protests, which the Trump administration labels as “anti-semitic”.

The US Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and the General Services Administration— all part of the Trump Administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism— announced the cuts in a statement, citing Columbia’s ongoing failure to stop pro-Palestine protests.

The statement adds that the cuts are the “first round of action” against the Ivy League university, emphasizing that more cancellations are anticipated as Columbia has more than $5 billion in federal grant commitments.

The agencies stated that they would issue stop-work orders for the grants and contracts, which will immediately freeze Columbia’s access to the funding without divulging details about the specific programs that will be affected.

Columbia under fire for alleged ‘anti-semitism’

Columbia University has been the battleground for threats and measures targeting pro-Palestine students who organized and shared in protests against “Israel’s” genocide in Gaza, which “Israel” supporters have labelled as anti-semitic.

The US House Committee on Education and the Workforce demanded in February that Columbia University submit disciplinary records by the end of this month for students involved in anti-“Israel” protests between April and January 2024, criticizing the Ivy League institution’s handling of the matter.

The House panel sent a six-page letter to Columbia University’s leadership on February 13, stating that the institution had failed to fulfill its promise to students, faculty, and Congress to address “anti-Semitism,” asserting that “Columbia’s ongoing failure to confront the widespread anti-Semitism on campus is unacceptable, especially given the university receives billions in federal funding.”

The university’s newly established Office of Institutional Equity launched multiple investigations to track down students who voiced their opposition to “Israel”, according to the Associated Press.

Columbia sent notices to dozens of students for activities ranging from sharing pro-Palestinian social media posts to taking part in protests that the school considers “unauthorized,” while the creation of the “disciplinary office” sparked concerns among students, faculty members, and free speech advocates who said Columbia caved in to Trump’s pressure.

March 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | 5 Comments

Polish PM plans to double size of army

RT | March 8, 2025

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has unveiled plans to more than double the size of the country’s military to 500,000. Speaking in the Polish Parliament on Friday, Tusk said Poland must be prepared for future conflicts and strengthen its defenses.

Tusk reiterated his earlier claims that Russia poses a threat to Europe, saying Moscow could launch a “full-scale operation” against a “larger” target than Ukraine within three to four years – which Russia has repeatedly dismissed as unfounded. He argued that Poland must serve as a “bastion” to protect NATO’s eastern flank and should expand its military capabilities.

“We’re talking about the need to have an army of half-a-million in Poland, including the reservists,” he stated, noting that Poland’s current armed forces number around 200,000, which he compared to Russia’s estimated 1.3 million troops. Tusk said his government is drafting legislation that would require every adult male in Poland to undergo “large-scale military training” to prepare for a potential conflict with Russia.

“We will try to have a model ready by the end of this year so that every adult male in Poland is trained in the event of war, so that this reserve is comparable and adequate to the potential threats,” he said. He added that Polish women may also be required to undergo military training, though “war is still to a greater extent the domain of men.”

Tusk’s remarks came a day after EU leaders approved a major military spending plan to unlock billions of euros to build up defense capabilities. The initiative – ReArm Europe – which was adopted following an emergency summit in Brussels, hikes defense spending by up to €800 billion ($840 billion) – twice the total EU defense expenditures in 2024. The Kremlin condemned the bloc’s “militarization” plan, calling it a path towards confrontation that hinders peace efforts with Ukraine.

In addition to a larger army, Tusk said Poland must enhance its military capabilities, including through the acquisition of nuclear and “modern unconventional weapons.” Tusk’s speech followed his recent accusations that Moscow is fueling a new arms race, and calls for fellow EU nations to ramp up defense spending.

The Kremlin has criticized Tusk’s rhetoric as confrontational and militaristic. Moscow has rejected accusations that it poses a military threat to Europe, with President Vladimir Putin dismissing the claims as “nonsense” designed to justify increased military budgets.

March 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Recycling ‘Russiagate’ in Romania

By Drago Bosnic | March 8, 2025

Romania has been going through unprecedented instability in the last several months, with the Brussels-run neoliberal dictatorship effectively taking over the country. It could even be described as a “soft coup” orchestrated to nullify the will of the Romanian people. The unelected bureaucrats are determined to ensure that Bucharest remains firmly in the EU/NATO orbit, particularly now that their war in Ukraine is not exactly going as planned, to put it mildly.

To that end, last year’s election was effectively stolen after the second round was canceled based on blatant lies. In the meantime, the EU bureaucratic dictatorship even bragged about “doing it in Romania” while threatening to “do it in Germany”. You’d think millions across the “old continent” would be outraged by such undisguised tyranny. However, things only got worse from then on.

On February 26, Romanian sovereigntist Calin Georgescu was arrested on trumped-up charges that boil down to him supposedly being a “Kremlin puppet”. It’s so obvious what’s the goal of all this that even the new US administration condemned such moves. Trump and his team certainly understand what Georgescu is going through, as he’s exposed to nearly identical persecution.

With the election less than two months away, the EU bureaucratic dictatorship is looking to ensure that Georgescu is eliminated before the race begins. The latest events demonstrate that the Deep State is now trying to recycle the so-called “Russiagate” hoax and use it to make sure Romania stays under NATO occupation. Namely, on March 6, six people were arrested and charged with “treason for colluding with Russia to undermine the country”.

If you think this is ridiculous, just wait until you hear the names of the “evil pro-Russian group” and one of its “masterminds”. Namely, according to the Financial Times, they were “named ‘Vlad the Impaler Command’ after Romania’s medieval ruler who served as inspiration for Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, with one of the members being a 101-year-old retired General Radu Theodoru.

The subliminal messaging is so evident that it’s questionable whether we can even call it that. There’s the mandatory “evil Vlad” (you’re probably “wondering” who it reminds you of) who also “served as the inspiration” for Lord Dracula, a vampire. The word “command” can be interpreted as indicating both a “military structure” and a “team” (команда in Russian). In other words, you have a “paramilitary team working for Vlad the Vampire“.

Considering the endless funding the Deep State-run institutions get, you’d think they would come up with something a bit more original and less obvious. And yet, it gets worse, because the accusations are all copy-pasted from the “Russiagate” hoax. According to SRI (NATO-run domestic intelligence agency), the “pro-Putin conspirators” were supposedly “seeking Russian help for a plot to overthrow the government in Bucharest” and “repeatedly contacted agents of a foreign power, located both on the territory of Romania and the Russian Federation”.

The EU-controlled regime in NATO-occupied Romania (ab)used the fake “plot” as an excuse to expel several high-ranking Russian diplomats from Moscow’s embassy in Romania, including a military attaché and his deputy who were accused by the SRI of “being in contact with the plotters”.

“The two Russian diplomats carried out intelligence gathering actions in areas of strategic interest and took actions to support the group’s anti-constitutional actions,” the SRI report claims.

FT says that the arrests and expulsions “come as authorities in Bucharest step up efforts aimed at curtailing Moscow’s attempts to meddle in its domestic politics after the unprecedented move in December to cancel a presidential vote because of Russian influence”. This is yet another indicator that the mainstream propaganda machine is laser-focused on beating a dead horse (although they’d never admit that the “Russiagate” hoax is precisely that).

The Kremlin pointed out that this is essentially an attempt to shift focus from the actual undermining of Romanian sovereignty by the EU/NATO. Obviously, this is also an attempt to justify the persecution of Georgescu who is accused of supposed “links to fascist groups and attempting to subvert the constitutional order”. If sentenced, Georgescu is faced with a decade in prison.

He still hasn’t been accused of having anything to do with the alleged “plot” by the aforementioned “Vlad the Impaler Command” group. However, this could easily be the next step in the smear campaign targeting Georgescu, who has been criticizing NATO’s crawling aggression in Europe for years.

The “evil Vlad” group is accused of similar “crimes”, including supposedly “discussing Romania’s withdrawal from NATO with Russian spies, the removal of the current constitution and the constitutional order, the dissolution of political parties, as well as the removal of all employees from state institutions … the change of the country’s name, flag, and anthem.” If this sort of “connection” is fabricated, it would likely happen just ahead of the presidential election, either for new indictments or another smear campaign.

The Romanian people are furious that the most popular candidate is being subjected to persecution and that their sovereignty is being infringed upon by the unelected bureaucratic dictatorship in Brussels. Numerous mass protests have been held in Bucharest and elsewhere in NATO-occupied Romania. The country’s strategic importance only grew with the advent of the political West’s crawling “Barbarossa 2.0” and the Romanian people could be the next in line to be used as cannon fodder against Russia.

They understand that the EU/NATO wants them to play this extremely unflattering role and, as anyone remotely sane would do, they effectively told NATO to go pound sand (as evidenced by last year’s election results). However, the world’s most vile racketeering cartel won’t give up that easily, so we’re likely to see more instability in Romania.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

March 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Illegal Occupation, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

‘The Romanian scenario’ – Fears of EU election interference in Poland after Brussels announces roundtable

Remix News | March 6, 2025

Henna Virkkunen, vice-president of the European Commission for Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, said that a roundtable on the presidential elections in Poland will be held in the coming weeks.

The Finnish politician told DW that such meetings are organized before every election in the member states and that she is concerned about the possibility of influencing the election results using social media.

“Cooperation with Germany went well, and I am sure that we will also cooperate closely with the Polish authorities. EU citizens have the right to be sure that elections are fair and free. And because of content recommendation systems and the content itself distributed by internet platforms, this is very difficult,” she said, complaining about the uncensored X platform.

Various politicians reacted quickly on X.

PiS MP Radosław Fogiel expressed concern, noting that “in Polish elections ONLY the voice of Polish citizens counts. They will certainly not be decided by the Vice-President of the European Commission, who does not even have a democratic mandate, because no one voted for her. But such announcements, along with the desire to limit freedom of speech, are disturbing. The EU is heading in a very dangerous direction.”

“The European Union is simply preparing for either the Romanian scenario in Poland or the introduction of political censorship,” said political scientist and publicist Prof. Adam Wielomski.

Following the cancellation of presidential elections in Romania after Călin Georgescu appeared poised to win, there are grave concerns about democratic backsliding in Europe. Georgescu has since been arrested in dramatic fashion and charged with a variety of crimes, including “misinformation.” After the events in Romania, former EU commissioner Therry Breton claimed they could annul the elections in Germany just as they did in Romania.

Author Rafał Ziemkiewicz wrote: “What the f**k? Will the Germans and the Eurocrats hold a ’roundtable’ to determine who will win the elections in Poland?”

“This is starting to look more and more serious. The European Commission openly announces interference in the Polish presidential elections!” posted PiS MP Paweł Jabłoński.

“Can you believe that she will hold a roundtable with Tusk on the presidential elections in Poland?” asked MP Michał Dworczyk.

March 6, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Democracy does not ‘die in darkness,’ it is dying in the EU right now

By Tarik Cyril | RT | March 4, 2025

Quiz time: What do Germany, Moldova, and Romania (in alphabetical order) have in common? They look so different, don’t they?

Germany is a traditional, large, and at this point still relatively well-off (if less and less so due to obedient self-Morgenthauing for the greater glory of Ukraine) member of the Cold War “West” (give and take a “re-unification” and all that). Currently, it has a population of over 83 million people and a GDP equivalent to $4.53 trillion. Romania is an ex-Soviet satellite with just above 19 million citizens and a GDP less than a tenth of the German one (at $343.8 billion). Moldova, which emerged from a former Soviet republic, is the smallest: 2.4 million people and a GDP of $16.5 billion.

And yet, look more closely, and they are not so different: They are all either inside the EU and NATO (Germany and Romania) or attached to these two organizations as an outside yet important strategic asset (the case of Moldova – despite and in de facto breach of its constitutionally anchored neutrality, as it happens). And also, all three have serious problems with conducting fair and clean elections. What a coincidence. Not.

Let’s take a quick look at each case: In Germany’s recent federal election, the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) failed to cross the threshold to representation in parliament – 5% of the national vote – by the thinnest of margins: The party officially garnered 4.972% of the vote. In absolute numbers, almost 2,469,000 Germans voted for the BSW (with the decisive so-called “second vote”). Only 0.028% – about 13,000 to 14,000 votes – more and the party would have passed the 5% barrier.

Even extremely tight results can, of course, be real and legitimate. The problem in Germany now is that there is steadily accumulating evidence that the elections were compromised by serious flaws and repeated errors. What makes this even more urgent is the fact that there seems to be a clear pattern with mistakes occurring not randomly but mostly at the cost of the BSW.

We already know about two key problems, although not much more than one week has passed after the election on February 23: First, about 230,000 German voters live abroad, but many of them could not cast their vote because the necessary documents reached them too late, sometimes even only after the elections. Of course, we cannot tell how exactly these voters would have voted if given the chance. But that is not the point. The fact alone that they could not participate casts severe doubt on the legitimacy of the results. And especially in the case of the BSW where so few additional votes would have been enough to principally change the outcome, that is, secure seats – and probably two to three dozen – in the next parliament.

The second even more disturbing issue is that there is ever more evidence of actual BSW votes inside Germany being allocated to another party. In the case of the major city of Aachen, for instance, a result of 7.24% for the BSW was registered for the “Bündnis für Deutschland” (an entirely different and much smaller party with no chance of parliamentary representation to begin with). The BSW vote was erroneously registered as 0%. Only protests by local BSW voters brought the scandal to light.

German mainstream media are trying to depict what happened in Aachen as an exception. Yet by now there are reports of similar “errors” from all over Germany – and don’t forget that the process of looking for these cases has only just started. In sum, there are good reasons – and they are getting better by the day – for believing that, for the BSW, the difference between correct and incorrect election procedures actually amounts to the one between being and not being in parliament. That implies, of course, that all those citizens who have voted for the BSW may well have been deprived of their proper democratic representation as foreseen by law.

Is there a motive for foul play? You bet. The BSW, an insurgent party combining leftwing social with rightwing cultural and migration-policy positions, has been hounded as too friendly toward Russia because it is demanding peace in Ukraine; it also has been outspoken about its opposition to basing fresh US missiles in Germany and to Israel’s crimes as well.

In Germany as it is now, these are all reasons for neo-McCarthyite smear campaigns and repression by – at least – dirty media tricks, all of which has already happened. It is entirely possible that a wave of deliberate local “mistakes” was added to that nasty tool box. And, a slightly different issue, asserting the BSW’s legal rights now will be especially difficult, in particular because a revision of the election result to include the party in parliament would immediately upset the complicated arithmetic of government coalition building. The BSW and its voters, in short, may well have been cheated, and they may be cheated again in case they seek redress.

The fact that one problem with those German elections has to do with voters living abroad rings a bell called Moldova, of course. There, last November, Maia Sandu narrowly won a presidential election that involved massively manipulating the outside-the-country vote. In essence, Moldovans abroad, especially in Russia, likely to vote against her were, in effect, disenfranchised by making it impossible for them to actually cast their vote; Moldovans more likely to vote for her, in the West, faced no such problems.

This crude trickery was decisive: Without it Sandu would have lost and her left-wing rival Alexandr Stoianoglo would have won. In the West, whose candidate Sandu has been, this outcome was, of course, hailed as a victory for “democracy,” a pro-EU choice, and a defeat of “Russian meddling.” As so often, it is hard to decide what is more jaw-dropping: the Orwellian reversal of reality or the Freudian projection of the West’s own manipulation on the big bad Russian Other.

That projection, in any case, is also in play in Romania. Indeed, at this point, the Romanian case of electoral foul play is clearly the most brutal one. There, the gist of a long saga beginning last November, too, is simple: Calin Georgescu, an insurgent newcomer is very likely to win presidential elections. Yet he is being denounced as a far-right populist and – drum roll – as somehow in cahoots with Russia, too.

The consequences were not surprising, except in how drastic things have gotten: First, when Georgescu was close to winning one election, the Constitutional Court abused its power to cancel the whole exercise. The pretext was a file of pseudo-evidence cobbled together by Romania’s security services that, by now, even Western mainstream media admit is ridiculously shoddy.

As you would expect, this open assault on their right to vote has made Romanians support Georgescu more, not less, as polls show. Since the next try at elections is now due to take place in May and Georgescu is still the frontrunner, the authorities have followed up with even more ham-fisted repression. This time, Georgescu was temporarily and dramatically detained – on the way to registering his renewed candidacy – and then accused of half a dozen serious crimes. His access to social media has been curtailed; his team and associates are being raked with searches, charges, and, of course, media attacks. It is possible that he will be deprived of his right to stand for the election.

Georgescu’s supporters have held large demonstrations; he himself has appealed for help in his struggle against Romania’s “deep state” to the Trump administration in Washington. Trump’s de facto right-hand man, tech oligarch Elon Musk, has used his X platform to signal support for Georgescu. And not long ago, US Vice President J.D. Vance warned the Europeans over the first round of attacks on Georgescu.

Yet Romania’s key role in NATO strategies is certain to be a key reason the NATO-skeptic and sovereigntist Georgescu has run into such massive trouble, not only from Romanian mainstream elites but also, behind the scenes, those still running the EU. With Washington now revising its approach to both Russia and its NATO clients in Europe, Georgescu’s fate could well hinge on one of the greatest geopolitical shifts of this century. And that shift might favor him.

Maia Sandu’s crooked victory in Moldova is not up for revision. The chances for the BSW of finding redress should be good, but, in reality, they are not, unfortunately. Georgescu’s luck, though, may turn again. He already has massive electoral support; he may well get even more precisely because of the escalation of dirty tricks used against him, and he has the US de facto on his side.

What is certain, in any case, is one simple fact: the “garden” West, with its endless talk of “values” and “rules” does not, in practice, believe in real elections. Instead, geopolitics prevail. And, tragically, those geopolitics are not only overbearing but stupid. Driven by an obsession with fighting Russia (and China, of course; and the Trumpist US, too, if need be) and rejecting diplomacy as such, this is a West ready to sacrifice whatever little democracy it may have left to a delusion of grandeur that will be its downfall.

Tarik Cyril Amar ia a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | 1 Comment

UN demands answers from UK on terror law abuse

By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | March 1, 2025

As the British state harasses and arrests a growing number of activists and dissident journalists, including the author of this piece, UN rapporteurs delivered a forceful letter of protest to London condemning its abuse of counter-terror legislation.

In December 2024, a quartet of UN rapporteurs focused on “peaceful assembly and of association” and the “right to privacy” delivered a strongly-worded letter to the British government. Expressing grave concerns about the potential “misapplication of counter-terrorism laws” to arrest, detain, interrogate and surveil dissident activists and journalists, including The Grayzone’s Kit Klarenberg, they demanded clarity on a number of serious issues. Given 60 days to respond, London remained suspiciously silent.

As a result, the UN’s correspondence with the British government has now been made public. The rapporteurs were clearly disturbed by reports of Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, and Schedule 3 of the 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, which covers “hostile” state threats, “being used to examine and obtain data from journalists and activists Johanna Ross, John Laughland, Kit Klarenberg, Craig Murray and Richard Medhurst in circumstances where they appear to have no credible connection to ‘terrorist’ or ‘hostile’ activity.”

While awaiting a reply that never came, the UN “urged” British authorities to undertake “interim measures” to prevent any recurrence of potential human rights breaches under counter-terror legislation, and “ensure the accountability” of anyone responsible for “alleged violations.” Evidently undeterred by pressure from the UN, Britain has continued to escalate its war on dissidents.

Since the UN issued its letter of protest, British activists and journalists have since been arrested, raided, and prosecuted, including Asa WinstanleyTony GreensteinSarah WilkinsonPalestine Action cofounder Richard Barnard, and academic David Miller.

The UN letter focused on how “powers under counter-terrorism legislation have been used on multiple occasions to examine, detain, and arrest journalists and activists, particularly at the UK border.” Individuals “who are critical of Western foreign policy in the context of the conflict in the Middle East and the Russia-Ukraine war are especially affected by the reported misuse of these powers,” the rapporteurs wrote.

Ominously, the UN rapporteurs suggested this could amount to “over-use [or] misuse” of British counter-terrorism legislation “to target legitimate freedom of expression and opinion, including public interest media reporting, and related freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and political dissent or activism.”

“Vague and broad” laws mean mass-persecution

The UN rapporteurs were especially scathing in their critique of the powers used to harass and potentially incarcerate targets. They charged that Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act “may be unjustifiably used against journalists and activists who are critical of Western foreign policy.” In each case they investigated, detentions under this legislation were “premeditated [and] examination, confiscation of devices, and DNA prints were conducted despite the apparent absence of a credible ‘terrorist’ connection” with the individual in question.

Such promiscuous application of ostensible counter-terrorism laws creates the unavoidable “risk of intimidating, deterring, and disrupting the ability of journalists to report on topics of public importance without self-censorship” in Britain. This “serious chilling effect,” the rapporteurs cautioned, could extend well beyond media, and “unjustifiably interfere with the rights to freedom of expression and opinion and participation in public life” across “civil society and legitimate political and public discourse.”

The UN took repeated aim “at the vagueness and overbreadth” of the 2000 Terrorism Act’s criminalisation of “expressing an opinion or belief…supportive of a proscribed organisation.” The legislation’s terms provide no definition whatsoever of the term “support”, an “ambiguous” deficiency that “may unjustifiably criminalize” legitimate opinions “not rationally, proximately or causally related to actual terrorist violence or harms.” They noted this prohibition “goes well beyond the accepted restrictions on freedom of expression under international law concerning the prohibition of incitement to violence or hate speech.”

Indeed, “speech that is neither necessary nor proportionate to criminalize, including legitimate debates about the de-proscription of an organization and disagreement with a government’s decision to proscribe” could be categorized as “supporting” a terrorist group under the 2000 Terrorism Act’s sweeping terms. This is especially problematic given certain factions proscribed by Britain, such as Hamas or Hezbollah, may be “de facto authorities performing a diversity of civilian functions, including governance, humanitarian and medical activities, and provision of social services, public utilities and education”:

“Expressing support for any of these ordinary civilian activities by the organization could constitute expressing support for it, no matter how remote such expression is from support for any violent terrorist acts by the group.”

Working for “hostile” governments without knowing

Similar alarm was sounded about the wording of Schedule 3 of the 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Act, under which The Grayzone’s Kit Klarenberg was detained upon returning to his home city of London in May 2023. It stipulates that anyone entering British territory suspected of “hostile activity” on behalf of a foreign power can be held against their will and interrogated for up to six hours, while the contents of their digital devices are seized and stored. Non-compliance automatically results in arrest.

See the notice of detention issued by British state security to journalist Kit Klarenberg under Schedule 3 of the UK’s Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act of 2019 here.

Ever more disturbingly, Schedule 3 is suspicionless. Under the legislation’s terms, “it is immaterial whether a person is aware that activity in which they are or have been engaged is hostile activity, or whether a state for or on behalf of which, or in the interests of which, a hostile act is carried out has instigated, sanctioned, or is otherwise aware of, the carrying out of the act.” In other words, no conspirator in a suspected conspiracy has to have consented to potentially illegal activity.

“Hostile acts” are defined as any behavior deemed threatening to London’s “national security” or “economic well-being.” Again, the rapporteurs condemned this language as “vague and over-broad.” They concluded the phrasing granted British authorities “extraordinary discretion” to engage in “unnecessary, disproportionate or otherwise arbitrary interferences in the rights to liberty and privacy” of individuals detained under these powers. Moreover, as the Act’s targets are not formally under formal criminal investigation or arrest, or suspected of having committed any offense, they have no right to remain silent.

The UN branded this distinction as “artificial… given the punitive sanctions for non-compliance,” branding it as “inconsistent with the accepted meaning of ‘arrest’ or ‘detention’” under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The “extreme breadth” of Schedule 3 also “enables unnecessary, disproportionate, arbitrary or discriminatory interference with an individual’s rights, including freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom of movement…and the rights to leave and enter one’s own country.” Article 17 of the ICCPR also states:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with [their] privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on [their] honour and reputation.”

This is explicitly contrary to Klarenberg’s May 2023 experience at Luton airport. There, as the rapporteurs documented, he was “fingerprinted, subjected to oral DNA swabs, and photographed by the examining officer,” while asked excessively invasive questions about his financial affairs, personal and professional relationships, and living situation in his adopted home country of Serbia. His belongings were extensively “searched and he was compelled to provide the passwords to his digital devices, which included a smartphone, tablet, and two cameras.”

Not only was all data on these devices copied, but “the memory cards and SIM cards of the electronic devices were copied outside the interrogation room” and “retained by the police.” As of the letter’s dispatch, one of Klarenberg’s memory cards had “been retained for a period exceeding a year and five months” by British authorities, suggesting he “remains under criminal investigation” for uncertain offenses he did not knowingly or willingly commit.

The rapporteurs noted Klarenberg was among several journalists detained by British border officials whose “electronic devices [were] confiscated for a significant period of time and have not been updated on the use, retention or destruction of their data, or advised in relation to their personal data protection rights.” In many cases, these seized items have never been returned, without satisfactory explanation or seeming legal justification.

New British laws further criminalize dissent

In closing, the UN rapporteurs “encouraged” London to repeal legislation under which dissidents have been persecuted, or “amend it to protect freedom of expression, and…develop prosecutorial guidelines for its appropriate use to avoid the unnecessary or disproportionate incrimination of political dissent.” They further implored London to “indicate how the application of counter-terrorism laws” against activists and journalists “is consistent with international human rights law, and an appropriate application of the law,” while providing “an update on the retention of data taken from the journalists.”

They went on to “urge” the British government to “consider the growing number of instances” where laws purportedly intended to deal with violent terrorist threats “may have been inappropriately directed towards journalists and activists, and to consider addressing this through amendments to the legislation, guidance for relevant officials, and training of border security officers.” Britain’s failure to respond to the UN’s letter, and ever-ratcheting attacks on domestic dissent subsequently, amply indicate these entreaties have fallen on determinedly deaf ears.

In December 2023, Britain rammed through a new round of draconian legislation reinforcing and further codifying the “vague and over-broad” terms of the laws condemned by the UN, under the auspices of the National Security Act. Its terms introduce a number of completely new criminal offenses with severe penalties, and wide-ranging consequences for freedom of speech. Explicitly enacted to neutralize investigative journalism and prevent the emergence of a new WikiLeaks, the Act is so expansive, individuals will almost inevitably break the law without wanting to, intending to, or even knowing they have.

British journalist Johnny Miller seeks asylum in Russia following campaign of harassment

At almost exactly the same time when UN rapporteurs complained to the British government about its abuse of “counter-terror” legislation to persecute dissidents, independent journalist Johnny Miller was granted asylum in Russia. Miller, a British citizen, had reported from the front lines of the Ukraine proxy war for two-and-a-half years. During this period, supporters of the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky subjected him to a campaign of intensive harassment, hacking his digital devices and Telegram account, bombarding him and his family with anonymous death threats, and publicly stalking him.

Miller told The Grayzone he’s not sure who or what was ultimately behind the campaign of harassment, but strongly suspects British and/or Ukrainian intelligence played a role. He says it was evident from the start of 2024 his movements in Moscow were being closely tracked while he travelled around the city, and seemingly in advance. At repeated meetings with friends and sources in bars, cafes and restaurants in the Russian capital, individuals would be waiting there for him, staring at him menacingly:

“It might sound crazy, but I think that’s the point. The purpose was to drive me insane, and make me look insane if I ever spoke up about this publicly. But these intimidating encounters from afar happened too many times to be a coincidence, and were witnessed by those I met with. One of them was George Dusoe, a US diplomat who quit out of protest over Gaza, after growing disillusionment with US government policy, and then moved to Russia.”

Miller met with Dusoe for a coffee a day before a formal interview. Afterwards, as they headed for the central Moscow metro, Dusoe quietly informed him they were being followed by multiple people. “He’d not only experienced that personally while posted abroad, but was specially trained in how to spot and evade it,” Miller noted. While the pair eventually eluded their stalkers, losing them in the metro, the experience shook Miller.

To this day, he can’t help but wonder, “what if I was alone, and this happened at night?,” citing the example of Adrian Bocquet. A French military veteran, he travelled to Ukraine in April 2022, witnessed Kiev’s forces commit countless grave war crimes, publicly testified to these atrocities while disputing Western claims of Russian atrocities in Bucha after returning home, then was stabbed in Turkey by Ukrainian nationalists. Miller is understandably relieved to finally be granted a degree of legal protection, personally and professionally:

“Their aim was to make me so scared for my life I stopped my work, and they almost succeeded. The psychological impact was massive, it was a form of warfare, and it stressed me like nothing I’ve ever experienced before,” he commented. “It’s a sick irony that one of the main reasons I sought asylum in Russia is [in order] to apply for a new passport, I would’ve had to give the British embassy in Moscow my address. No way!”

While detained in Luton airport in May 2023, The Grayzone’s Kit Klarenberg was not only forced under threat of arrest and prosecution to provide British counter-terror police his apartment address in Belgrade, but its location within the building, how much he paid for rent, and whether energy bills were included in that price. To what malign ends this information was put isn’t clear. From Miller’s point of view, British intelligence is determined to harass dissidents wherever they are, inside the country or thousands of miles away.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Arrest of activist Yves Engler and unchecked growth of Zionist network in Canada

By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | March 3, 2025

Attempts to harass and intimidate pro-Palestine voices through fabricated and politically-motivated legal cases have intensified in the West, further revealing the dangerous tactics and mechanisms adopted by the organized Zionist network.

Numerous such cases have emerged recently, including in recent weeks, involving prominent journalists and activists such as Ali Abunimah in Switzerland, Richard Medhurst in Austria, David Miller in England, and Yves Engler in Canada.

What is common between these cases is a pattern of prolonged detentions, often lasting hours or even days, on false charges or vague suspicions. Those targeted are treated as criminals, subjected to incoherent interrogations, and in many instances, thrown in jails.

Press TV recently published firsthand accounts from Medhurst and Miller, both longtime contributors to Iran’s leading international news network, detailing their experiences.

Miller emphasized that activists and journalists are prime targets of the Zionist lobby, which exerts pressure to harass or detain pro-Palestine voices across Western countries.

This was further corroborated by the recent case of Yves Engler in Canada, where the prominent author and activist was detained for five days.

Engler, who occasionally appears on Press TV as a commentator, in a statement posted on his website outlined the methods employed by Zionist lobbyists to intimidate people like him.

Based in Montreal, Engler has been an outspoken critic of the Israeli regime and its lobbyists. He has authored 13 books on Canadian history and foreign policy, including Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid, which exposes Canada’s longstanding support for the Israeli regime.

Legal harassment of Yves Engler

On February 18, Engler received a call from a Montreal police officer named Crivello, who instructed him to appear at the downtown police station two days later, where he would be charged with harassment and indecent communication.

The officer explained that a complaint had been filed against him months earlier by a legal firm representing Dahlia Kurtz, a well-known Zionist rabble-rouser and outspoken supporter of the 16-month-long genocide in Gaza.

Engler had previously criticized Kurtz’s racist and violent anti-Palestinian posts on X in a polite and measured manner. He recalled her first – and only – reaction.

“Tomorrow the Montreal police will arrest me for posting to social media against Israel’s genocide in Gaza,” Engler wrote in an article police reached out to him over Kurtz’s complaint.

Pointing out that he had “responded to Kurtz’s racist, violent, anti-Palestinian posts on X”, Engler said he had not harassed the influencer, who “supports killing Palestinian children” and “openly calls for state violence against those challenging Canadian complicity in genocide.”

“I’ve never met Kurtz. Nor have I messaged or emailed her. Nor have I threatened her. I don’t even follow her on X (Twitter’s algorithm puts her posts in my feed).”

In early July 2024, Kurtz quoted one of his posts and wrote: “Hello, Engler Yves. I’m advising you in this one message only that you are harassing me. You’re threatening and you’re making me afraid for my safety. You must stop this harassment – and communication with me. Stop now.”

His statements that she referenced, posted a few days earlier, read: “Racist Dahlia supports killing Palestinian children. 20,000 is not enough, she wants even more Palestinian blood spilled.”

Her response was a blatant lie. Engler had never threatened, harassed, or contacted her—neither publicly nor privately via messages or emails—nor was he following her on X.

Despite this, her exaggerated claims of victimhood escalated beyond false public accusations to the extent of hiring a law firm to pursue criminal charges against him.

On the morning of February 20, Engler was taken into custody at the police station, where an officer informed him that he would be detained overnight or until he was brought before a judge.

Citing the alleged risk of recidivism, authorities held him in custody for a total of five days.

Public support for Engler

Engler’s imprisonment drew widespread anger and outrage among pro-Palestinian and human rights activists, who staged protests outside the police station and courthouse for several days.

A day before his arrest, an article on his website in which he detailed the situation, prompted the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute to launch an email campaign.

In response to his initial call, over 4,000 people emailed Montreal police inspector Crivello, demanding the charges be dropped. Soon after, more than 6,000 others sent emails to the Montreal police chief and mayor, echoing the same demand.

Organizations such as PEN Canada and PEN America, Canadian Senator Yuen Pau Woo, and journalists Ali Abunimah, Glenn Greenwald, Caitlin Johnstone, and Aaron Maté all spoke out about the case, either through statements or articles, expressing deep concern over the charges.

Singer David Rovics composed the song “What’s Going On Here, Montreal?” in response to Engler’s imprisonment and Kurtz’s violent anti-Palestinian rhetoric.

Musician Roger Waters created a short social media clip on Engler’s arrest over pro-Palestine advocacy, which garnered hundreds of thousands of views.

According to Engler, the presence of protesters during the final hours of his detention may have influenced the judicial decision to acquit him and order his release.

He also suggested that their activism contributed to more respectful treatment from the guards.

Yves Engler celebrates his release

Key Zionist rabble-rousers

After his release, Engler expressed gratitude to his supporters for their consistent backing and shared further details about the legal manipulations he encountered during his five-day detention.

He emphasized that his brief imprisonment was insignificant compared to the suffering of thousands of Palestinian abductees languishing in Israeli jails, some of whom endure incarceration for decades.

When questioned by police investigator Crivello, Engler did not deny that he had referred to Kurtz on the X platform as a “genocide supporter” and a “fascist”, labels he asserted were accurate based on their relevant definitions.

He further clarified that he had never met Kurtz nor communicated directly with her via text or email, suggesting that her claims of receiving “threats” and fearing for her safety were outright fabrications.

As a condition of his release, the investigator required him to agree to cease all interaction with Kurtz, a condition Engler stated he was willing to accept to regain his freedom.

In other words, he would no longer reference her content on social media, critique her chauvinistic outbursts and insults toward individuals or groups, or expose her attempts to play the victim.

Additionally, the investigator asked Engler’s lawyer, John Philpot, to agree that Engler would refrain from discussing the case – a request he believed was intended to shield the police, Kurtz, and her legal team from public scrutiny and embarrassment.

However, it appeared that the primary objective of the Zionist network was to completely silence Engler and apply similar tactics to other uninformed pro-Palestinian activists.

Engler had already rejected this condition before his detention, calling it “a flagrant violation of his freedom of expression” and stating he was willing to remain incarcerated until a judge ruled on whether such a restriction was legally permissible.

After spending five days in detention, he was released on February 24 without any restrictions on his ability to discuss the charges against him for his anti-Zionist activism.

He described this as “a small win for free expression and Palestine campaigning.”

“In court, the judge effectively forced the Crown to drop its bid to prevent me from mentioning arch anti-Palestinian Dahlia Kurtz. The Crown [government] sought to restrict my ability to name the Jewish supremacist who instigated a police complaint against me,” he said.

Rather than granting them anonymity, he publicly exposed those suing him, the legal firm they hired, their methods, and all related details – boldly refusing to be silenced.

Dahlia Kurtz proudly poses in the occupied territories as columns of smoke from Israeli bombing rise over Gaza Strip

Who is Dahlia Kurtz?

Dahlia Kurtz is a Canadian Jewish Zionist hate-monger who positioned herself as the leading advocate for the Israeli regime in Canada during the West-backed Israeli genocidal war against Gaza.

She unconditionally defends all Israeli military actions and has never condemned their crimes against Palestinians, instead dismissing their suffering as if it does not exist.

Yet, she has been seen proudly posing in the occupied Palestinian territories with plumes of smoke rising from an Israeli bombing on the Gaza Strip in the background.

On her website, Kurtz openly flaunts these images and reveals that she was on a “media mission” to the occupied territories, where she met with Israeli officials, implying direct ties to the regime’s vast propaganda apparatus.

She has organized events where she trained Zionist settlers and other lobbyists to operate according to a specific six-point plan she obtained during these visits.

Her social media rhetoric is saturated with Israeli disinformation, fact distortion, manipulative techniques, and the dehumanization and demonization of Palestinians. Yet she has never faced legal consequences for her actions.

Among the countless examples, she has claimed that Palestinians “know only terror,” suggested that there are no innocent Palestinians even in images of thousands of gathered Gazans, and mocked Palestinian children suffering from hunger and freezing temperatures – calling their parents “genocidal” and “obese,” among other remarks.

Following the ceasefire, she declared, “Gaza is still standing. The world has never witnessed such restraint” – a statement completely at odds with UN reports documenting destruction of civilian infrastructure on an unprecedented scale.

Regarding Jewish anti-Zionist protesters outside the Canadian Parliament, she claimed they “love Gaza too much,” using quotation marks to suggest they were fake Jews, and added that she would personally fund their deportation to Gaza.

Kurtz aggressively cultivates a victimhood narrative, frequently emphasizing that she is a short, weak woman, allegedly the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, and an independent actor. She presents herself as the ultimate symbol of the “victim” while branding critics and dissenters as “threateners.”

As Engler highlights, her image-building and propaganda efforts are bolstered by certain Canadian media outlets and politicians who seek to persuade the public that Canadian Jews are the real victims, with Kurtz positioned as a heroic figure pushing back against Canada’s so-called Jew-hate problem.

She also receives direct legal support from the Montreal-based law firm Spiegel Sohmer, particularly from litigation lawyer Neil Oberman, who is involved in Engler’s case.

Despite her claims of acting independently and financing her efforts on her own, all evidence suggests that she is merely the visible face of a well-organized Zionist network.

Neil Oberman (right) gives a political speech

Who is Neil Oberman?

Neil G. Oberman is not just a randomly selected lawyer to sue Engler. He is a key figure in the Zionist network, with deep ties to the Israeli regime and its lobby groups in Canada.

A Canadian Jewish Zionist like Kurtz, Oberman is a founding member of the Quebec Jewish Legal Alliance (QJLA), an organization that has recently made headlines for its desperate attempts to suppress local pro-Palestinian protests.

The QJLA works closely with Federation CJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), and other Zionist advocacy groups, engaging in numerous pro-Israeli initiatives and programs.

Oberman has personally delivered pro-Israeli lectures, instructing audiences on strategic positioning, activism tactics, and the politicians and universities to target.

He is also a board member of Technion Canada, the Canadian branch of the Haifa-based university long criticized by international Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activists for its collaboration with the Israeli military and leading arms manufacturers.

Since last year, Oberman has been the Conservative Party of Canada’s candidate for the Mount Royal riding in the upcoming federal election.

His campaign is backed by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Hampstead Mayor Jeremy Levi, two of Canada’s most fervent Zionists, who reportedly helped raise $200,000 for his campaign late last year.

Engler notes that he is merely Oberman’s latest target, as the lawyer has already launched a series of lawsuits in recent months against various institutions and individuals who oppose Israel’s genocidal policies against Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Oberman’s legal targets

Among his first individual targets in late 2023 was journalist Max Blumenthal, whom he threatened with a frivolous lawsuit on behalf of Lauren Wise – a Zionist author who notoriously wished for a woman to be “raped and dragged in the streets in front of her kids” for flying a Palestinian flag.

In the first six months of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Oberman and the QJLA actively worked to suppress pro-Palestinian protests in Montreal, sending legal threats to Mayor Valérie Plante and denouncing her for allowing what he called “hate festivals.”

He also attempted to dismantle a pro-Palestinian encampment at McGill University through various legal maneuvers, but a Quebec Superior Court judge rejected an injunction request filed by two Zionist students represented by Oberman.

However, he did secure an injunction banning protests at a Jewish community building and synagogue and later expanded the ruling to include two dozen institutions for six months.

Oberman also issued legal warnings to Concordia University regarding pro-Palestinian rallies, but after being rebuffed, he lashed out at the institution, declaring: “You don’t know Neil Oberman, you don’t know the Alliance [QJLA], and you don’t know what’s coming next. This is a war!”

Frustrated by his failure to impose a 100-meter protest ban around 154 university buildings, he and other Zionists went so far as to accuse Iran of orchestrating the demonstrations at a Canadian university.

In November 2024, he collaborated with pro-Israeli pressure groups to block a visit by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese at McGill Law School. Despite their efforts, she delivered a speech commending pro-Palestinian students.

On this occasion, Oberman openly acknowledged his cooperation with several Zionist organizations, including the Jewish Law Students Association (JLSA), Israel on Campus, Students Supporting Israel (SSI), and UN Watch.

Neil Oberman (right), UN Watch’s head Hillel Neuer (center) and Hamstead Mayor Jeremy Levi (left) campaigning against Francesca Albanese’s speech at McGill University

Engler confronts Oberman

Engler personally confronted Oberman in order to question him about Israeli genocidal crimes against Palestinians in Gaza – a moment he documented on the X platform.

Oberman initially tried to evade the exchange by falsely claiming that Engler was addressing the “wrong person.” However, when Engler pressed him about the 15,000 Palestinian children killed by the Canada-backed regime, Oberman snapped aggressively, ordering him to back off and threatening to sue.

According to Engler’s lawyer, John Philpot, Oberman played a crucial role in Engler’s five-day detention. Kurtz’s original complaint from last summer had been dismissed by police, and charges were only pursued after Oberman intervened.

Philpot noted that in a minor case like Engler’s, the standard police response would typically be to instruct the accused to avoid contacting the complainant.

However, the authorities imposed additional conditions on Engler, including an unusual demand that he refrain from revealing the identity of those suing him.

The latest victim of false accusations from Kurtz and Oberman is Canadian Senator Yuen Pau Woo, known for his vocal criticism of the Tel Aviv regime and advocacy for Palestinian rights.

As in Engler’s case – where Woo had publicly expressed support during his detention – Kurtz now alleges that Woo “incited hate, aggression, and violence” against her through a series of X posts.

The Zionist modus operandi

The duo’s actions, legal maneuvers, and overall conduct illustrate the broader strategy used by the Zionist network to suppress pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist voices.

In an April 2023 lecture to pro-Israeli agents, Oberman urged them to rethink their approach to advocacy, warning: “If you act like sheep, you’re going to get treated like a sheep. If you don’t want to be a sheep, be a wolf. Stand up and be heard. You have to be heard, and to be heard, you have to take action.”

Oberman exemplified this doctrine when confronted by Engler about the mass murder of Palestinian children, refusing to address the issue and instead resorting to intimidation and legal threats.

Kurtz follows a similar pattern. Despite being publicly called out hundreds of times for glorifying Israeli crimes, she consistently ignores the criticism, sticking to her narrative.

Justifying the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians is both demanding and time-consuming. Instead, Zionist advocates and their allies in Western media often opt to ignore these atrocities altogether, pretending they do not exist.

When a dissenter gains too much visibility and disrupts their propaganda efforts, they shift tactics –playing the victim, issuing veiled threats, and ultimately resorting to baseless legal action.

Both Kurtz, online, and Oberman, in person, portrayed themselves as victims – falsely implying that Engler had privately threatened them, when in reality, they were the ones harassing him.

The charges they file have no real legal merit and serve purely as intimidation tactics. However, they still drain their targets’ time, resources, and mental energy.

These lawsuits are also leveraged in parallel smear campaigns, with media headlines falsely implying that Engler was arrested for harassment.

For activists, filing counter-charges for false accusations, a lesser offense legally, requires hiring a lawyer and securing financial resources. Meanwhile, well-funded Zionist legal groups face no such obstacles.

The attempt to condition Engler’s release on refraining from criticizing Zionist activists or discussing the lawsuit, according to observers, is a clear indication that the Zionist network in Canada has a premeditated strategy to silence other pro-Palestinian activists in the same manner.

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

Perestroika then and now

By Přemysl Janýr | March 3, 2025

Vienna – In the 1980s, Eastern Europe was caught in the tension between the inflexible ideological framework of the Communist Party and the burgeoning desires of the populace for economic and political transformation. For those entrenched in power, it was about more than just holding onto their cushy positions; their very survival was at stake, as the legitimacy of their rule was precarious and the societal mood was increasingly inhospitable.

These rulers sought solace in ideological manipulation and censorship. The state-controlled media cast the West as the ultimate adversary, perpetrating ideological subversion through the dissemination of bourgeois propaganda spread by enemies of the socialism with the goal of toppling the socialist regime by violent means. Yet, this narrative had limited traction; the West’s allure lay in its exemplary living standards, relative freedom, and human rights and its intentions to overthrow the socialist system was substantiated by nothing but vacuous rhetoric.

Then, in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev emerged as the General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, introducing Perestroika — a sweeping set of economic and political reforms aimed at making the Soviet Union and the broader Eastern Bloc competitive with the West. This sparked widespread anticipation among the populace, yet also stirred anxiety among the Eastern European power structures: Gorbachev’s initiatives contained elements that threatened their power, but also a sudden shift in allegiance, redefining the hitherto adversary as ally.

The social divide grew more profound. The hopes of the populace in satellite nations were pinned on the current hegemon, now perceived as an ally against the rigid domestic power structures that he had previously established. Yet, from the perspective of the Eastern European elite, Gorbachev had committed an act of treachery, deserting them and leaving them to face their fate alone.

Within four years, the Eastern Bloc crumbled, and two years later, the Soviet Union followed suit. The previously dominant CPSU was outlawed, and its remnants in Eastern Europe swiftly switched allegiance to the former adversary.

History, it seems, has a peculiar way of repeating itself. In the early 21st century, a parallel schism is forming in Western societies. The very elements that made the West appealing for four decades — traditional values, social welfare, peace, human rights, liberty, and democracy — have been ruthlessly curtailed. The ruling establishments are embroiled in the spread of panic over COVID-19 and are actively participating in the Ukraine war and the genocide in Gaza.

Western Europeans are increasingly placing their trust in emerging populist parties, spanning both the right and left wings of the political spectrum. For the entrenched establishment, it is about more than just holding onto their cushy positions; their very survival is at stake. Their grip on power and the pathways that lead to it are laden with activities that could be unequivocally deemed criminal. The evolving societal climate does not appear promising for them either.

Their salvation, they believe, lies in media manipulation and censorship. The mainstream narrative consistently vilifies Russia and China as ominous dictatorships, wages campaigns against disinformation, the Russian propaganda, conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism spread by agents of Putin. The West, it claims, faces an imminent attack from Russia. Yet, this narrative had limited traction; the West’s credibility has been eroded by its own actions, and the notion of a Russian attack is substantiated by nothing but vacuous rhetoric.

In 2025, Donald Trump re-entered the political arena as the US President, initiating MAGA, a movement to combat the deep state and cleanse American society of obscure financial and power structures. This stirred great hope among many Americans, but also significant apprehension among the established elite. MAGA represented not just a challenge to their power, but also a sudden shift in allegiance, redefining the West’s adversary as potential ally.

The social rift grew wider. The residents of Western satellites pinned their hopes on the current hegemon, now perceived as an ally against the rigid domestic power structures. Yet, from the perspective of those structures, Trump had committed an act of treachery, deserting them and leaving them to face their fate alone.

The trajectory seems clear: the eventual disintegration of the Atlantic bloc and the shift of its remnants to the former adversary. Will the collapse of the hegemonic power come next? It’s a reasonable prediction.

But let’s go a step further. The euphoria of the Cold War’s end and the unbridled optimism for a future of comprehensive peace, freedom, democracy, and human rights were soon overshadowed by their gradual erosion. In retrospect, the new hegemon had only its own global world domination in mind from the beginning. This led to new conflicts across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

Can we expect history to repeat itself after the fall of the Atlantic bloc? Not necessarily. The emerging superpowers of China, India, and Russia do not share the western legacy of colonialist exploitation. The BRICS+ coalition presents itself as a multipolar community of equals, emphasizing cooperation over competition.

Still, we must remain cautious, for the 1990s taught us that optimism can be fleeting. A society that neglects its history is destined to repeat it. Over the past 25 years, we have amassed a treasure trove of tragic lessons to learn from and be vigilant against.

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Sinophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment