France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
France Is About To Outlaw Criticism Of Israel
Protesters hold a banner reading “Supporting Palestine is not a crime” and “Stop genocide in Gaza” at a rally against the Yadan bill, in Paris on 12 April 2026.
The Dissident | April 13, 2026
A bill that the French National Assembly will vote on, on April 16th and 17th, effectively outlaws criticism of Israel, making it a criminal offence to question Israel’s “right” to exist as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state on occupied Palestinian land, compare Israel’s conduct to the Nazis, or support armed resistance against Israeli occupation and aggression.
The bill writes, “Today, anti-Jew hatred in our country feeds on obsessive hatred towards Israel, regularly delegitimized in its existence and criminalized. This phenomenon is exacerbated by extreme spirits who, under the pretext of expressing their hatred towards a State, are the instigators of a reinvented anti-Semitism, which could be described as ‘geopolitics’.”
The bill seeks to criminalize critics of Israel and paint them as terrorists, writing that the “call for the destruction of Israel and its comparison to a Nazi regime – are rooted in consciences with impunity, taking up the rhetoric of movements recognized as terrorist such as Hamas or Hezbollah.”
The bill seeks to criminalize:
- “Public remarks presenting acts of terrorism as legitimate resistance” (ie support for armed resistance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza or occupation of Lebanon).
- “Causing the destruction or denial of a State or publicly advocating its destruction or denial” (i.e., questioning Israel as a Jewish apartheid state, including calls for a single democratic state in historic Palestine with equal rights).
- “to clarify and extend the crime of challenging the Shoah, by enshrining several essential contributions of case law” adding “the comparison of the State of Israel to the Nazi regime would therefore be sanctioned as an outrageous trivialization of the Shoah” (i.e. factually pointing out that the state of Israel is behaving like the Nazis, including by committing Genocide in Gaza, as the UN independent international commission found in September of last year, and by calling for an expansionist greater Israel and ethnic cleansing to establish Jewish settlements ,similar to the Nazi concept of Lebensraum, an idea that has been openly endorsed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his main political opponent Yair Lapid).
Analyst Arnaud Bertrand documented that the bill attempts to make the criminalization of speech as broad as possible.
He noted that “Article 1 introduces the concept of ‘implicit’ provocation to terrorism and punishes it with five years imprisonment and a fine of €75,000,” adding, “What does ‘implicit provocation to terrorism’ mean? Nobody knows. And that’s the point. It means whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean: a perfectly good case could be made that, for instance, quoting international law on the right of occupied peoples to resist with respect to Hamas is, in fact, ‘implicit provocation to terrorism.’”
He added that “The same article also expands the terrorism apology offense to include ‘minimizing or trivializing acts of terrorism in an outrageous manner’” adding that “a judge could decide that providing context, explaining root causes, or insufficiently condemning an act amounts to ‘trivializing’ terrorism”, “for instance, a history teacher explaining the origins of Hamas or Hezbollah is providing context – but a prosecutor could argue that contextualization is trivialization. The same reasoning could apply to a journalist, a researcher, or anyone on social media who says ‘yes, it was terrible, but here’s why it happened.’ The ‘but’ becomes a crime, as it is trivialization.”
He also noted that, “ if you advocate for a one-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live as equals, you are de-facto calling for the ‘destruction’ of the state of Israel. Well, that would now be punishable by 5 years in prison”.
The bill is called “the Yadan Law” because its creation was headed by National Assembly deputy Caroline Yadan, who represents the “French legislative constituency for citizens abroad” where “Israel has the largest number of voters in the constituency, with over 50,000 registered French voters”.
JNS noted that, “Yadan was elected to parliament as a representative of Renaissance but downgraded her ties to the party, switching to an independent affiliated lawmaker in September following the Macron administration’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state.”
In other words, the bill was brought by a Zionist French politician whose main constituency are Israelis.
Arnaud Bertrand noted, “The U.S. has congressmen paid by AIPAC: France has cut out the middleman entirely, we have MPs whose constituency is literally in Israel.”
Caroline Yadan is a genocide denier who has written, “The term genocide corresponds neither to the rights nor to the facts, nor to the intentions of the war in Gaza.”
Referring to the bill, the former French anti-terrorism judge Marc Trevidic said, “I’d never seen anything like it, the notion of implicit incitement to terrorism. Can you imagine what that means? A censor of other people’s thoughts, trying to figure out what a person meant”.
There is no doubt that this bill is designed to silence criticism of Israel, and that the lawmaker behind it is pushing it forward on behalf of her Israeli constituents.
How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech
A UK regulator bypassed every formal legal treaty and just emailed American companies into compliance, 98% of them apparently obliged
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | April 9, 2026
A Freedom of Information response has confirmed what the UK’s speech regulator would probably have preferred to keep quiet. Ofcom fired off 197 information demands to American tech companies under the Online Safety Act, and not a single one went through the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, the formal diplomatic process that exists for exactly this kind of cross-border legal enforcement. Every one of those 197 notices was sent directly, by email or post, to companies operating entirely on American soil.
The number comes from a FOI request filed by Daniel Lü, who asked Ofcom a series of pointed questions about how it enforces the Online Safety Act against non-UK targets.
Ofcom confirmed that as of February 26, 2026, it had issued 197 Section 100 notices to US businesses. Zero through MLAT. The treaty between the US and UK that governs how one country’s legal process gets enforced in the other’s jurisdiction was treated as optional. Ofcom decided it didn’t apply.
That admission drew an immediate response from Preston Byrne, the American lawyer who represents 4chan and other US companies targeted by Ofcom.
Byrne called the 197 notices a “breathtaking” “attack on the First Amendment” and pointed out the uncomfortable math.
Only two US companies, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, have publicly refused to comply with Ofcom’s demands. If Byrne’s assessment is right, that leaves Ofcom enjoying “a 98% compliance rate with foreign censorship orders that violate the First Amendment.”
A British regulator sent nearly 200 demands to American companies, bypassed every established legal channel, and almost all of them appear to have simply done what they were told. The chilling effect is already here.
Ofcom Uses Free Speech to Hide Its Censorship Methods
Lü did more than ask for the number of notices. He asked for policy documents about how Ofcom selects its foreign enforcement targets, what guidance it gives its teams about the legality of emailing criminal penalty warnings to US corporations, and whether Ofcom has any internal guidance on protected speech.
Ofcom admitted it holds much of that information. Then it refused to hand it over. The reason, cited directly from the FOI Act, was that disclosure “would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation; and/or would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.”
A speech regulator is claiming that transparency about its censorship operations would damage free and frank deliberation. Ofcom is borrowing the language of free expression to shield itself from accountability over how it suppresses expression. The irony is so complete it feels deliberate.
On the question of whether Ofcom holds any guidance on protected speech, the answer was even more revealing. Ofcom said it doesn’t have any. No internal documents addressing what speech is protected when it exercises its enforcement powers against foreign companies.
It pointed instead to its general obligations under the Online Safety Act, the Communications Act 2003, and the European Convention on Human Rights, along with links to already-public guidance documents. That’s the speech protection regime for companies being censored by the UK from American soil: a few hyperlinks to existing publications.
The MLAT Problem Isn’t New. It’s Getting Worse.
The treaty issue is central. MLAT exists so that when one country wants to enforce its laws against people or companies in another country, there’s a formal process involving both governments. For the US side, that means routing through the Department of Justice. A judge gets involved. There’s oversight. There are procedural protections.
Ofcom has previously argued it doesn’t need to use MLAT because its Section 100 notices are administrative, not criminal. That distinction might satisfy Ofcom’s lawyers in London, but it doesn’t satisfy anyone else. Byrne and his clients have argued in federal court that Ofcom’s demands have no legal force precisely because they skipped the treaty process. 4chan and Kiwi Farms received their enforcement demands by email, sent to addresses that in some cases weren’t even authorized to accept legal service.
The Lü FOI also asked whether Ofcom holds any correspondence with the US Department of Justice or the FBI about its enforcement activity. Ofcom’s response: it holds no information related to this question. The regulator didn’t talk to anyone in the US government before firing off 197 demands to US companies. It just hit send.
What the FOI Actually Revealed, and What Ofcom Hid
Lü’s request covered six questions. The pattern in Ofcom’s responses tells its own story. On the questions where Ofcom could respond by linking to documents that are already public, it was happy to share. On everything else, it cited exemptions, claimed it didn’t hold the information, or both.
When asked for policy documents about enforcing the OSA against non-UK providers, including any records discussing MLAT, Ofcom said it holds some information but won’t release it. It also claimed it holds no records of MLAT discussions or legal guidance about whether emailing criminal penalty warnings to American corporations is valid. Either Ofcom never considered whether its enforcement method was legal under international law, or it did consider it and doesn’t want anyone to see that analysis.
When asked how it selects non-UK enforcement targets, Ofcom cited exemptions under the Communications Act 2003 and linked to its public enforcement guidance, plus its own decisions against 4chan and other US entities. The internal criteria, the actual decision-making process for choosing which American companies to go after, stayed hidden.
When asked about its approach to “qualifying worldwide revenue,” the basis for calculating fines that can reach £18 million or 10% of global revenue, Ofcom linked to its public guidance explaining that companies are expected to self-report their revenue to Ofcom. Companies that Ofcom is threatening with fines are supposed to voluntarily tell Ofcom how much money they make, so that Ofcom can calculate a bigger fine. The compliance incentives here are about as perverse as they get.
Byrne Goes to Congress
Byrne said he forwarded Ofcom’s admission directly to the US government. He tagged US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, Senator Eric Schmitt, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, and called on Congress to act. This is consistent with Byrne’s approach throughout the Ofcom fight. He has previously said he copies the US government on Ofcom correspondence that crosses his desk.
The legal strategy from the US side has been to deny Ofcom any clean precedent. The four companies that received formal enforcement action, 4chan, Kiwi Farms, a mental health forum called SaSu, and the social network Gab, all refused to comply. 4chan responded to one of Ofcom’s fines with a picture of a hamster. The point was to make Ofcom’s orders publicly and visibly unenforceable on American soil, turning each attempted punishment into a political liability for the regulator rather than a deterrent for the rest of the American internet.
But the 197 number changes the scale of the problem. Those four companies were the public-facing enforcement targets, the ones Ofcom wanted to make examples of. Behind them, 193 other US companies apparently received quieter demands and, if Byrne’s analysis is correct, most of them complied without a fight. Without lawyers, without publicity, without anyone in Congress knowing it happened.
Byrne has pushed the GRANITE Act, a proposed law that would allow US entities to sue foreign governments for censorship attempts and void foreign censorship orders in US courts. Sarah Rogers, the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, has appeared on GB News in London suggesting Congress is considering a federal version of the law. The Trump administration has made public statements objecting to the Online Safety Act. The US State Department sent diplomats to London in 2025 to challenge Ofcom directly.
Whether all of that translates into legislation remains an open question. Ofcom, for its part, has already moved on to bigger targets. After spending a year trying to fine platforms like 4chan and getting nowhere, the regulator recently opened new investigations into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Roblox, and X. The small companies held the line. The question now is whether the large ones will too, or whether they’ll decide that complying with a foreign regulator’s censorship demands is easier than asserting their constitutional rights.
Alberta Bill Would Fine Political Deepfakes $10,000 Without Satire Exemptions
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | April 7, 2026
Alberta’s government wants the power to fine people $10,000 for creating a political deepfake. The bill makes no distinction between a fake video designed to suppress votes and a satirical meme poking fun at the premier.
Justice Minister Mickey Amery tabled Bill 23, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, on March 30.
The legislation would prohibit individuals and entities from creating or distributing deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the conduct or statements of a party leader, minister, leadership or nomination contestant, MLA candidate, the chief electoral officer, the election commissioner, Elections Alberta employees or election officers.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
The ban’s reach is notable for what it doesn’t say. There is no carve-out for satire, no exemption for parody, no protection for political memes. A deepfake clearly labelled as humor could still be prosecuted if someone, somewhere, decided it was “likely to mislead voters” about a politician’s statements. Who decides what’s likely to mislead? The election commissioner, the same office empowered by the bill to issue directions to stop the creation, distribution, or publication of content it deems in violation.
Officials said the prohibition would apply at all times, not only during the election cycle. The ban operates year-round, every year, regardless of whether Albertans are anywhere near a ballot box. It applies to content about sitting politicians even when no one is voting.
“We know that deepfake technology is going to continue to improve, and the distinction between what is reality and what is fake is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish,” Amery said.
Alberta’s bill takes a different approach. Rather than relying on existing fraud and election interference laws to prosecute genuine bad actors, it creates a broad new category of banned speech and gives a government appointee the power to enforce it.
“Bill 23 ensures that our elections will remain fair and honest,” Amery said. “This is why Bill 23 will prohibit the creation and distribution of deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the statements or conduct of a candidate. Public confidence is essential to a healthy democracy.”
The phrase “likely to mislead” is where the real power sits. A deepfake of a premier singing a ridiculous song, obviously fake to any viewer, could technically be argued to mislead someone about the premier’s “conduct.” A satirical clip of a justice minister saying something absurd could be classified as a misleading depiction of their “statements.” The legislation provides no guidance on how to distinguish a genuine attempt at voter suppression from a political joke that happens to use AI-generated media.
Those who violate the rules face fines of up to $10,000, and entities up to $100,000. Additional fines could be imposed for each day of non-compliance. Those are serious penalties for speech that may well be constitutionally protected under the Canadian Charter. The chilling effect is predictable. An Alberta resident thinking about making a satirical AI video about their MLA now has a strong incentive to not bother. The government doesn’t need to prosecute anyone for the law to work exactly as a speech restriction always works, by making people think twice before they speak.
The bill also happens to be buried inside a much larger piece of legislation that quietly reshapes how Albertans can challenge their own government. Bill 23 would create a 12-month blackout period before and after provincial elections for starting or continuing a citizen initiative petition. It would also repeal deadlines for the government to call a referendum for any future successful policy or constitutional petition. A citizen petition that gathers enough signatures no longer comes with any deadline for the government to actually act on it. A petition delayed long enough is a petition that never matters.
Alberta already has laws against fraud and election interference. The question is whether a province needs a new law that bans a broad category of political expression, with vague definitions and no protections for satire or parody, enforced by fines that would bankrupt most individuals.
Opposition parties have indicated tentative support for the bill, which is unsurprising.
The deepfake provisions will probably pass. They’ll sit on the books alongside the citizen petition restrictions, the removed referendum deadlines, and the expanded government oversight of the signature verification process. Bill 23 gives the Alberta government more tools to control what citizens say about their politicians and fewer obligations to respond when citizens try to hold those politicians accountable.
The US-Israeli War on Science is an Assault on our Future
The late Dr. Mortada Sorour (left) and Dr. Hussein Bazzi (right), professors at Lebanese University who were killed by Israel.
International Union of Scientists | April 1, 2026
The International Union of Scientists condemns the American-Israeli killings of scientists and bombing of universities.
On 12 March 2026, the Israeli military killed Dr. Hussein Bazzi, chemistry professor and Dean of the Faculty of Sciences, and Dr. Mortada Srour, Professor of Chemistry and Physics, two scientists at the Lebanese University’s Rafik Hariri Campus in Hadath. This killing of scientists occurred in the context of Israeli bombings and invasion that have displaced around one million Lebanese and killed over 1100, a crisis that has been compared to the Nakba of 1948 and the ongoing Gaza Genocide. Israel has been destroying housing, including the apartments of surgery professor Haytham Kaafarani and chemistry professor Bilal Kaafarani.
On 23 March, US-Israeli forces killed Dr. Saeed Shamghadri, a distinguished professor of engineering at the Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), along with his two children and others in his building. Since then, the US and Israel have bombed at least 20 of Iran’s universities, including the IUST in Tehran and the Isfahan University of Technology. This destruction is part of a larger pattern of US-Israeli scholasticide in Iran, including the massacre of more than 170 people, mostly schoolchildren, at an elementary school in Minab, and the targeting of more than 600 schools across Iran. The US military also tested a new weapon on a school in Lamerd, killing 21, mostly children.
Dr. Saeed Shamghadri, professor of engineering, killed in a US-Israeli bombing
Israel and the US have likewise attacked healthcare. Israel has bombed more than 60 healthcare facilities in Lebanon, while the US-Israel coalition has attacked at least 50 hospitals in Iran.
We recognize this violence as a continuation of the scholasticide perpetrated in Gaza, where US-backed Israel destroyed all of Gaza’s universities as part of their genocide. Scientists, universities, schools, and hospitals represent the future that humanity aims to build. By killing scientists, the US and Israel aim to destroy the futures of the people of Lebanon and Iran. Since the start of the Gaza Genocide in 2023, Israel and its backers have dismantled international law and the rules of war established in the era since 1945. These latest attacks confirm that the US and Israel have a vision of lawless destruction and slaughter.
The International Union of Scientists therefore condemns in the strongest possible terms the killing of scientists and the destruction of educational infrastructure by US and Israeli forces. We call upon the international scientific community to document these crimes against scientists and students, extend material support to displaced scholars, and demand accountability for the aggressors.
Germany seeks to restrict stays abroad for men of fighting age – Berliner Zeitung
RT | April 7, 2026
German men who remain abroad for more than three months without prior approval may start facing penalties under a military-related legal requirement, according to the Berliner Zeitung.
The rule obliges men of fighting age, between the ages of 17 and 45, to obtain permission before extended stays abroad. It came into force on January 1, 2026, but April is when the first three-month period expires and enforcement may begin, the outlet has said.
Germany is in the process of a massive military buildup, with plans to spend reportedly more than €500 billion (around $580 billion) on defense by 2029. German officials have set 2029 as the deadline for the armed forces to be “war-ready” for a potential conflict with Russia.
Moscow has repeatedly denied any plans to attack NATO as “nonsense” and ridiculed Western politicians over such claims. In February Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Russia had “no reason” to attack the EU or NATO unless attacked first.
The new requirement, which was introduced under the Military Service Modernization Act and reportedly largely went unnoticed, previously applied only during a “state of tension” or a “state of defense,” defined as situations of heightened external threat or armed attack. Since the amendment took effect, it now applies at all times, including in peacetime. The Defense Ministry said the measure is intended to maintain a reliable registry of individuals eligible for military service.
Several EU states, including Germany, have recently moved to reintroduce conscription. The German government has said the armed forces should grow from around 180,000 active soldiers to more than 260,000 by 2035.
Students staged protests in late March in German cities against Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s plans to expand military service. Demonstrators accused the government of preparing forced mobilization, with some chanting that “Merz should go to the front himself and risk his own life.”
The new rules faced criticism from the MPs in the Bundestag, with the Green Party’s security policy spokeswoman, Sara Nanni, telling Die Welt on Sunday that “citizens have a right to know quickly whether they are required to report, and if so, what their reporting obligations are.”
When addressed about the backlash by Politico on Tuesday, a spokesman for the German Defense Ministry said that it “is currently developing detailed provisions to allow for exemptions from the approval requirement, also with a view to avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.”
According to the ministry, approvals to leave the country are expected to be issued in all cases as long as military service remains voluntary in Germany.
How I fell foul of the BBC thought police
By Charlie Spedding | TCW Defending Freedom | April 5, 2026
THE BBC recently featured a United Nations report which claimed the Earth’s ‘Energy Balance’ was dangerously disrupted by excess heat caused by rising carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. This is false for many reasons, but rather than explain why, I want to discuss the BBC.
This story was on the evening news and also on the website. I read many of the comments posted online. The majority were worried and adamant that we must ‘do something before it is too late’. I wanted to reassure people that there is nothing happening to the climate that could be described as a crisis and carbon dioxide is not the control knob of planetary weather patterns. I decided it was best to direct them towards some of the world’s leading physicists rather than attempt to explain it myself. This is what I tried to post on the BBC website:
‘May I respectfully suggest that everyone worried about a man-made climate crisis do some research. I recommend the work of Prof Richard Lindzen, Prof William Happer, Prof Willie Soon, Nobel Laureate John Clauser and the CO2 Coalition. Most people don’t realise how much we are all manipulated by vested interests including the mainstream media. Be smarter than most and learn from world experts.’
The website moderators informed me that my post had been deleted because it broke their house rules: ‘We reserve the right to fail comments which . . . are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others, are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable; contain swear words or other language likely to offend.’
I appealed against their decision, not because I expected them to change their minds, but because it gave me the opportunity to ask which part of my post they considered to be ‘sexist, racist, homophobic or abusive’. This was their response: ‘In this instance, we believe the moderator made the correct decision so we will be unable to uphold your appeal. Due to the volume of correspondence we receive, we are unable to discuss this matter further.’
They were confident the ‘rules’ had been broken but would not tell me which part of my message transgressed which part of their rules. I didn’t express an opinion about the climate but suggested that the opinion of world-renowned specialist scientists was worth reading. Did the BBC object to this, or was it my reference to manipulation by the mainstream media? I included that comment in reference to the BBC’s Environmental Correspondent, Justin Rowlatt, who was found to have lied about the climate in a 2022 BBC Panorama programme called Wild Weather. He said deaths worldwide were rising due to extreme weather caused by climate change – whereas the opposite is true.
The BBC’s Charter states that ‘The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.’
The Public Purposes of the BBC are ‘To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them.’
When it comes to coverage of the climate the BBC is not impartial, high-quality or informative. In this case, it has blocked an opportunity for people to discover high-quality scientific research from around the world. I am firmly of the opinion that I am not the one breaking rules; it is the BBC which is ignoring its own rules and charter.
Washington University removes professor who condemned US-Israeli war on Iran
Press TV – April 5, 2026
The University of Washington has removed a professor from his role as director of its West Asia Center after he criticized the illegal US-Israeli aggression against Iran and condemned Zionism.
Aria Fani, who will remain an associate professor at UW’s Jackson School of International Studies, said the new interim, Daniel Hoffman, told him last week he was fired from his leadership role at the West Asia Center.
Fani, who was born and raised in Iran and came to the US when he was 18 years old, said he was hired for his research on Iran. However, he told the Times that he now feels “profoundly hurt and betrayed” by his removal.
“There is a chilling effect on not just my academic freedom, but that of my colleagues; anyone who dares to speak out against the war and against aggression,” he said.
In a separate interview on Friday with My Northwest, Fani said he was removed “for improper use” of the center’s listserv, an email application.
“I sent out two memos about this atrocious war on Iran in which I offered historical analysis that’s lacking in the media,” Fani said.
“I was told that my email made ‘certain constituents feel attacked.’ By certain constituents, I assume the university means Zionists who would like to keep bombing every Middle Eastern country and continue dehumanizing their people.”
Last July Fani told the Daily UW, a student newspaper, that President Donald Trump’s militaristic foreign policy is not making the world safer.
“If you tell the dozens of children that were killed in Israeli bombardment… in Iran, or the families of the nuclear scientists who were just wiped out, I hardly imagine they would say that the world is a more peaceful place,” he said amid the first round of US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran.
Since then, many more Iranian children have been killed by US and Israeli bombing, including more than 100 students who were among around 175 people massacred in the February 28 US missile strike on a girls’ school in Minab.
“The [only] peace this secures is for weapons manufacturers, for oil companies, for drone companies,” Fani said in an implicit rebuke of Trump’s claim to be the “president of peace.”
“It secures peace for them, fills their pockets with money, and makes them fully invincible,” he added. “It’s creating a class of people that are living [on] an alternate planet.”
The US and Israel launched an unprovoked aggression against Iran in late February, by attacking 30 targets across Tehran and assassinating the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, along with several senior Iranian officials.
Since then, Iranian armed forces have retaliated strongly by launching barrages of missiles and drones at Israeli-occupied territories, as well as US bases across the region.
Al Mayadeen voices solidarity with Dr. Marandi amid death threats
Al Mayadeen | April 5, 2026
Al Mayadeen Media Network has expressed full and unwavering solidarity with Professor Mohammad Marandi in response to online campaigns openly calling for his assassination.
Professor Mohammad Marandi, a distinguished Iranian academic with global recognition, has been targeted by pro-Israeli accounts on X, including a verified account that posted a $1 million bounty explicitly calling for his assassination.
Despite repeated requests for the post’s removal and the suspension of the account, the platform and its CEO, Elon Musk, have taken no action.
Al Mayadeen characterized the spread of such content on global media platforms as ‘blatant, intelligence-driven terrorism,’ expressing profound outrage and disbelief that US-owned media outlets would permit calls for the extrajudicial killing of academics and scientists.
The network condemned these assassination threats as a manifestation of ‘cowboy-era barbarism,’ underscoring that Professor Marandi wields only his voice and his commitment to independent thought.
Al Mayadeen further highlighted the stark hypocrisy in permitting such threats against a peaceful academic while systematically curtailing the voices of those associated with resistance movements.
Call for global solidarity
Al Mayadeen called on the global academic, scientific, and media communities to publicly support Dr. Marandi and condemn the policies of major digital platforms that tolerate incitement to violence while suppressing legitimate expression.
The network warned that such practices foster a perilous environment in which intimidation and assassination threats can flourish unchecked.
“The threats against Professor Marandi are a stark example of how media platforms enable terror under the guise of free expression, while silencing those who challenge the status quo”, Al Mayadeen stated.
Professor Mohammad Marandi continues to be a leading authority on Iranian and regional affairs, and Al Mayadeen reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding his right to speak freely, free from threats of violence or state-orchestrated harassment.
Brazilian Congressman seeks to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil
By Eman Abusidu | MEMO | April 3, 2026
A Bahia state lawmaker has formally urged President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil, following a series of controversial incidents involving Israeli tourists in Bahia. The measure argues that individuals who took part in military operations in Gaza and Lebanon could be held accountable for acts described in the document as genocide.
The proposal, submitted by state representative Hilton Coelho of the Socialism and Liberty Party (Psol), calls on the federal government to adopt measures preventing individuals linked to alleged human rights violations from using Brazil as a tourist destination or refuge. The document characterises such acts as potential genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Coelho grounds the request in Brazil’s Federal Constitution, which prioritises human rights, peace, and the rejection of violence in international relations, as well as the Migration Law (No. 13.445/2017), which permits authorities to deny entry to foreigners suspected of serious violations.
The proposal outlines operational measures, including monitoring arrivals through the Federal Police to identify individuals who participated in military operations, immediate denial of entry where applicable, and international coordination to restrict cross-border movement of those under suspicion.
The initiative comes amid increasing controversy in Bahia, particularly in coastal destinations such as Itacaré and Morro de São Paulo, which have become popular among Israeli tourists, many of whom travel after completing mandatory military service. Local businesses have adapted to this demand, offering Hebrew-language services and tailored hospitality, making the segment economically relevant.
However, tensions have escalated. On 14th March, three Israelis were arrested during a protest in Itacaré against the presence of Israeli tourists. Footage from the scene showed clashes between demonstrators and police intervention. Authorities reported simultaneous opposing demonstrations, reflecting a divide within the local population.
Residents have also reported incidents involving alleged racism, aggression, and public disturbances attributed to some visitors. In parallel, there have been legal complaints filed in Brazil against Israeli individuals over alleged actions during the war in Gaza, with reports indicating that some left the country before investigations could advance.
Congressman Coelho argues that allowing entry to individuals linked to such allegations risks normalising human rights violations and contradicts Brazil’s foreign policy principles.
He is calling for coordinated action by the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs to enforce stricter entry controls.
The proposal will undergo review within Bahia’s Legislative Assembly before being forwarded to the federal government. The administration of President Lula has not yet issued an official response.
Critics of the proposal contend that the measure could be viewed as discriminatory and may create legal and diplomatic challenges for Brazil.
Simultaneously, several lawmakers and members of the Brazilian parliament, particularly from left-wing parties, have withdrawn their signatures from a bill seeking to define “antisemitism” in Brazil, in a significant political reversal that came only days after the proposal was introduced.
The withdrawals followed Palestinian criticism and warnings that the bill could be used to curb criticism of Israeli occupation policies.
According to documents, Bill No. 1424/2026 was submitted to the Brazilian Congress on 26th March 2026, by lawmaker Tabata Amaral and others under the title: “Definition of Antisemitism for the Purpose of Guiding National Public Policies.”
The bill defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward them.” It also states that manifestations of antisemitism “may target the State of Israel as a collectivity representative of the Jewish people,” while adding that “criticism of Israel similar to that directed against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
The proposal further links antisemitism to the crime of racism under Brazilian law and recommends using a list of examples issued by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, as guidance in interpreting the concept.
But the bill, which initially appeared to enjoy support from lawmakers across different party lines, quickly faced pushback inside Congress.
According to procedural texts, the withdrawal requests used direct language, including: “Requests the withdrawal of the signature from Bill No. 1424/2026, which defines antisemitism for the purpose of guiding national public policies.” One request stated: “I request the removal of my signature from Bill 1424/2026.”
The deputy Heloiza Helena said her name had been included among the signatories without her authorisation, describing the move as unacceptable. She also pointed to the sensitivity of the issue for Palestinians amid what she described as daily attacks, including the killing of children and the destruction of hospitals and schools.
While the deputy Ana Paula Lima said she removed her signature after a deeper assessment of the proposal, in order to avoid any possible restrictions on what she called “legitimate political debate.”
Britain’s Lebanon surveillance network: A digital map for war
By Kit Klarenberg | The Cradle | April 3, 2026
On 7 March, the British government contractor Siren Associates unveiled Monitor Lebanon, a “real-time situational awareness platform” framed as a public safety tool “designed to help individuals and organizations understand and navigate Lebanon’s rapidly evolving security environment.”
The tool sifts vast swaths of “open-source information” from “news agencies, verified social media accounts, Telegram channels, conflict monitoring initiatives, and traffic data systems.”
Presented as a lifeline for journalists, humanitarian workers, businesses, and civilians during Israel’s ongoing war on Lebanon, the platform carries a far more operational intelligence function. Behind the humanitarian branding lies a sophisticated surveillance infrastructure embedded deep within the Lebanese state.
At the core of Monitor Lebanon is a live interactive incident map tracking “reported security events and key operational information.” The data is highly detailed, including information on “affected areas, road conditions, hospital locations, and other indicators that help users understand how developments may affect movement and access.”
A press release announcing the platform’s launch asserts Monitor Lebanon was initially constructed to provide Siren Associates staff with “a clearer view” of local events, before being rolled out for general public use.
“Already, team members displaced by the ongoing hostilities have been using it to check for reported strikes near their homes and to track evacuation orders. But many more people are navigating the same uncertainty, so we want to make this tool available to anyone who may benefit from clearer, real-time information.”
How did a British contractor produce such a detailed, nationwide surveillance platform instantly as the occupation state escalated its assault on Lebanon?
The answer lies in nearly two decades of British-backed penetration.
As The Cradle revealed in September 2021, Siren has received tens of millions of pounds from London to “professionalize” Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces (ISF). Staffed by former British military, intelligence, and policing officials, the company operates in Lebanon’s security sector in plain sight, yet largely beyond scrutiny.
Embedding control through ‘reform’
Siren’s footprint inside Lebanon’s state apparatus is extensive. The company maintains close ties with senior ISF officers, political figures, ministries, and intelligence branches. It has also cultivated future leadership within the ISF through training and recruitment programs.
In May 2019, Siren established Lebanon’s Command and Control Center with British funding. The installation provides the ISF with “state-of-the-art equipment, information and communication technology systems, [and] an analysis and planning room,” purportedly to strengthen the security forces’ intelligence capabilities.
In practice, it embedded a direct channel for British intelligence into Lebanon’s internal security infrastructure.
Such access grants London visibility over investigations, operations, and internal data flows. Over time, this has enabled the systematic accumulation of sensitive information on Lebanese citizens.
The scale of this data collection expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Siren quietly built COVAX, the digital backbone of the Lebanese government’s COVID19 vaccine rollout. Users could register, schedule appointments, and receive vaccine certificates. Over four million people used the service, logging extraordinary amounts of personal information in the process.
What appeared as public health infrastructure operated as a mass data capture system.
From welfare to surveillance architecture
COVAX became the foundation for broader digital penetration. In 2021, the World Bank allocated $246 million to Lebanon for social assistance. Siren used its existing infrastructure to launch DAEM, whereby citizens could apply for social assistance “in record time.”
Carole Alsharabati, Siren’s longtime research chief, has explained that “the idea [was] to deploy a system that was fully digitized from A to Z, just like we did for the vaccine.”
“The registration, the selection, then the payment, the cash transfer, the verification, the dashboard, etcetera. Everything was digitized. And we used the same framework, the same ecosystem, the same machines, the same security protection, the same data governance approach we used in the vaccine.”
Alsharabati described Lebanon at the time as a “very difficult environment,” with the experience of building DAEM “a wild journey.” After all, the country lacked a unique ID system, digital identification, or any established data governance rules, procedures, or even cybersecurity.
However, “nothing stood in the way of Siren’s determination to tackle these and many other challenges.” Evidently, the British and Lebanese governments were happy with the results. It was just the beginning of Siren’s new role in Beirut, constructing deeply intrusive databases on citizens.
This work has been replicated in multiple fields over the years, culminating in Monitor Lebanon’s recent launch. Much of this activity passed entirely under the public radar. It was not until December 2024 that Siren’s central COVAX role was openly admitted on the company’s official website, for example. That same month, Siren announced it had built a bespoke resource for the ISF, collating “operational data to inform decision making around mission planning, resourcing and management.”
Under the project’s auspices, British intelligence created a network of six separate Command and Control Centers across the country, linked digitally to 22 regional operation rooms. A “digital platform that enables the capture and analysis of crime and operational data” was also developed.
In December 2024, too, Siren disclosed how it had introduced “e-governance tools connecting more than 20 ministries, 1,000 municipalities and 1,500 mukhtars [local governments].” Unmentioned was a major scandal that erupted over this effort upon its rollout two years prior.
According to Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, the platforms produced by Siren were not secure, and permitted the firm to harvest the data of millions of users. Dubbed IMPACT, the resource allowed citizens to access a variety of government services, including applying for welfare payments.
The British embassy in Beirut, which funded the platform to the tune of $3 million, denied any wrongdoing, as did Siren. Nonetheless, local digital rights group SMEX expressed grave concerns over the security of private information stored by IMPACT, which was highly sensitive in nature.
Mapping a society for war
That Siren hoards an enormous amount of invasive information as a result of its work for and with the ISF is underlined by an April 2025 study, funded by Britain’s International Development wing. It probed “irregular maritime migration from Lebanon over the past three years,” placing the phenomenon in the context of Beirut’s “ongoing political, socio-economic, and security crises.”
The research sought to ascertain “who is migrating, why they are choosing to leave by sea, and what risks they face – particularly across gender lines.”
In September 2025, London renewed Siren’s ISF contract, allocating £46.3 million (around $61.3 million) – a significant increase. The timing raises serious questions about how much of that funding went into building Monitor Lebanon ahead of renewed Israeli escalation.
Since Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in October 2023, British activity in West Asia has pointed toward deeper involvement in a wider war effort targeting Iran and its allies.
In November that year, London attempted to secure unrestricted military access to Lebanese territory under the pretext of “emergency missions.” The proposal would have allowed British forces to operate freely, armed and immune from prosecution.
Public backlash forced Beirut to reject the plan. But the infrastructure remained.
Through Siren, Britain has built a digital panopticon spanning Lebanon’s institutions and population. This system provides real-time intelligence with clear military applications.
From Tel Aviv’s perspective, the benefits are obvious. Such data can be used to identify, track, and target members of Hezbollah and their support networks. It can also map civilian environments in ways that facilitate precision strikes.
The parallel to Palantir’s predictive surveillance platforms is clear.
Targeting the Axis of Resistance
Siren’s projects consistently overlap with services provided by Hezbollah. This is not accidental.
For years, British intelligence has worked to undermine the resistance movement’s social base by constructing parallel state structures.
For example, under the terms of a Foreign Office-funded youth radicalization effort, London sought to create an alternative to Beirut’s Hezbollah-run Ministry of Youth and Sport. It was hoped that “young, talented students and graduates” would thus reject the group.
There is little sign of these initiatives having borne fruit. A promptly deleted 23 March Daily Telegraph report documented how Lebanese Christians wholeheartedly embrace Hezbollah, and are determined to resist western-inspired efforts by Beirut’s army to disarm the resistance faction. “How can we as Christians in this area not be with Hezbollah?” a local citizen asked the newspaper perplexedly.
“They protect our churches. They helped us fight ISIS. During COVID, they gave us free care in their hospitals. When there was no electricity, they gave us generators. They even put up a Christmas tree at Christmas. How can we not be with them now?”
Despite the practical impossibility of disarming Hezbollah, it is a fantasy long harbored by western powers, which has gained in ever-mounting urgency since Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza commenced.
A British parliamentary briefing in September 2025 expressed optimism that the election of former Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) commander Joseph Aoun as president would weaken Hezbollah’s military wing.
That same month, US special envoy to Syria Tom Barrack openly proposed equipping the LAF “so they can fight their own people.”
He acknowledged that Israel’s aggression since October 2023 had only increased Hezbollah’s popularity, while offering “zero” incentive for disarmament.
Aoun’s presidency has not dismantled Hezbollah. Israeli military escalation continues, with mounting losses on the battlefield and rising civilian casualties across Lebanon.
While its catastrophic military losses accumulate daily, innocent Lebanese civilians are being killed in significant numbers. The line of responsibility for their deaths may lead directly back to London, courtesy of Siren Associates.
Bahrain faces scrutiny for opposition crackdown after detainee killed
Al Mayadeen | April 3, 2026
A Bahraini man detained during last month’s missile strikes on the kingdom has died in custody under contested circumstances, sparking renewed scrutiny of the country’s security practices amid wartime tensions.
Mohammad al-Mousawi, a Bahraini national who was detained as Bahrain came under attack from Iran, disappeared for several days before his family was contacted and asked to retrieve his body from a military hospital, relatives said. They reported that his body bore multiple injuries, including slash marks, bruising, and wounds on the soles of his feet.
His death has quickly become a flashpoint in the country, with critics accusing authorities of reverting to tactics used to suppress protests during the 2011 uprising.
Bahrain, which hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, has detained dozens of individuals since the outbreak of the war, including people accused of:
- filming strikes and demonstrations,
- expressing support for Iran against US-Israeli aggression
- alleged espionage.
“They want to make sure nobody challenges the state’s narrative and silence any voices not telling the story of the war how they want it to be told,” said Sayed Ahmed al-Wadaei of the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, a London-based advocacy group.
Bahraini Interior Ministry dismisses clear evidence
The Interior Ministry claimed al-Mousawi had been arrested on suspicion of spying for Iran, an allegation his family denies. Authorities also dismissed circulating images of his injuries as “inaccurate and misleading,” while insisting that the country is acting to protect national security.
In a statement, the government rejected accusations of sectarian discrimination, saying all actions were carried out in accordance with the law and that independent bodies are responsible for investigating claims of abuse.
Al-Mousawi had previously spent around 11 years in prison as part of a 21-year sentence on charges widely regarded as false, including accusations of arson and alleged membership in a “terrorist cell”. His family and rights groups have clarified that these charges are false and fabricated.
Severe abuse evident on al-Mousawi, Bahrain denies the obvious
A relative and a close family friend said Mohammad al-Mousawi disappeared on March 19 after attending prayers with two companions who also remain missing. Both spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, citing fears of reprisals. Rights groups have long accused Bahraini authorities of carrying out enforced disappearances.
On March 27, the family said they were called to collect his body. A relative who viewed it at the morgue reported signs of severe abuse, including injuries consistent with whipping using cables, as well as apparent electrocution and cigarette burns.
The Associated Press reviewed images of the body that showed marks consistent with accounts from five witnesses who said they saw it in person, all speaking anonymously. Bahrain’s Interior Ministry said al-Mousawi had been held by the National Security Agency, whose arrest powers were restored in 2017 after being revoked following the 2011 unrest.
The Ministry dismissed the images as “inaccurate and misleading,” while a military hospital attributed the death to a heart attack. His family said he had no known preexisting conditions. Ahmed Banasr of Physicians for Human Rights said the injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma, noting that wounds on the soles of the feet suggested abuse rather than a fall or fight.
Bahrain’s long record of repression, violence seeps into al-Mousawi’s case
Human rights organizations say the detention and death of Mohammad al-Mousawi mark a new phase in Bahrain’s long-running crackdown on opposition, which peaked during the 2011 protests. That year, the ruling Al Khalifa family suppressed mass demonstrations with support from Saudi and Emirati forces.
“It remains to be seen how far the government will go in its crackdown on people,” said exiled Bahraini activist Maryam al-Khawaja, whose father is imprisoned in Bahrain. “What we are witnessing now is certainly far more severe than in recent years,” she added.
Since the start of the war on Iran, at least 41 people, including migrant workers, have been arrested on accusations of publishing images of Iranian strikes. Some face charges of “treason”, which can carry penalties ranging from life imprisonment to the death penalty. In one case, 21-year-old Hussein Futeil and a friend were detained after posting videos of themselves waving a portrait of Iranian leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei during a protest outside the US Embassy.
According to his father, Naji Futeil, the two briefly reappeared after hours of questioning before Hussein later informed his family he faced five charges, including misuse of social media, incitement of hatred, and treason. Rights advocates say the cases reflect a broader effort to silence opposition, with Sayyed Ahmed al-Wadaei stating authorities aim to ensure no one challenges the state’s narrative.
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: Negotiations Collapsed – Return to War
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The US-Iran Scenario That Most Scares Israel
By Ali Haydar | Al-Akhbar | October 9, 2013
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a series of threats toward Iran and its interlocutors in the West, including the US, as serious negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program seem more plausible.
As a possible rapprochement looms between the US and Iran, Netanyahu has attempted to impose impossible Israeli conditions on the negotiators, such as the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, not to mention threatening military force.
Whatever the deal that could materialize between Iran and the West, Israel is going to find itself before an open-ended path. One can foresee three possible scenarios… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
- There are No Ceasefires with Israel, Only Opportunities for Later Attacks
- China to Ignore Trump’s Blockade: The Strait Remains Open to Us
- Trump’s desperate bombasts amount to war crimes
- Most Israelis oppose Iran ceasefire, reject talks: Poll
- Iran to charge ships from ‘hostile’ nations to cross Hormuz – security chief
- UK, Spain reject Trump’s new scheme to blockade Hormuz Strait
- Russian frigate ‘resurfaces’, chases off NATO pirates days after Kiev ‘sank’ it
- Ukraine Targets Russian Merchant Fleet With NATO Intel Support – Presidential Aide
- Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ makes mockery of UK naval power
- If Americans Knew
- Emergency waivers move arms for Israel, UAE to speed lane
- Caitlin Johnstone: Nobody’s “Obsessed” With Israel — It’s Just A Uniquely Horrible Country
- Israel’s Ben Gvir says he feels like the ‘owner’ of Al-Aqsa Mosque
- History of flotilla campaigns to end Israel’s siege of Gaza
- Humanitarian Scorecard: Six Months In, Gaza Ceasefire is Failing
- Mark Levin Seems Upset We Haven’t Nuked Iran
- Israeli prison authorities are blocking hundreds of solidarity postcards being sent to female Palestinian prisoners
- ‘I wished for death’: Sexual violence in Israel’s prisons is an ‘organized state policy’
- Israeli army shoots, kills 9-year-old girl in her Gaza classroom
- Israel is attacking Lebanon to sabotage the Iran ceasefire, but the media is hiding its true motivation
- No Tricks Zone
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
Aletho News 