EU court backs criminal prosecution for sharing RT videos
RT | July 2, 2026
The EU’s top court has ruled that private individuals can face criminal prosecution for posting RT videos on public websites, widening the bloc’s crackdown on Russian media.
The Court of Justice of the European Union issued the ruling on Thursday in a case from Germany, where three people are being prosecuted for publishing RT DE videos on a freely accessible website.
The site did not charge readers and was financed only through voluntary donations. The CJEU, however, said that made no difference and ruled that all persons who are “directly or indirectly” responsible for making banned content available to the public can be treated as “operators” under EU sanctions rules.
The judges argued it was irrelevant if the individuals were running a business, how long the content was available, or how widely it was spread.
Under the German law cited in the ruling, violations of EU sanctions-based media bans can carry up to five years in prison.
The ruling effectively pushes the EU ban on RT beyond broadcasters, platforms or media companies, allowing for the criminal prosecution of any individuals accused of making RT content publicly available online.
The EU banned RT and Sputnik, among other Russian media outlets, after the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. Brussels said the sanctions would remain in place until the end of the Ukraine conflict and after Moscow ceases to conduct “disinformation and information manipulation actions against the EU.”
The measures were followed by platform blocks, app-store removals, banking restrictions, and personal sanctions against media figures and journalists accused of working with Russian outlets.
Germany had targeted RT even before the bloc-wide ban, with RT DE facing licensing pressure, platform bans, banking problems and regulatory action.
RT has vehemently condemned the restrictions and rejected the EU’s accusations, stressing that the bloc has consistently failed to point to a “a single example, a single grain of evidence” of false reporting.
Moscow has repeatedly condemned the restrictions as censorship and an information war against Russia, accusing EU governments of using the Ukraine conflict as a pretext to silence dissent, suppress Russian-language media, and intimidate journalists who challenge the mainstream Western narrative.
Lloyds Debanks The Canary, Withholds Its Funds
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 1, 2026
The Canary is a British left-wing independent news site, running since 2015, that calls itself “radical working-class media” and made its name attacking the political establishment and the mainstream press.
On June 30, after almost ten years of banking together, Lloyds Banking Group shut the site’s business account, held on to a large share of its money, and gave no reason. The Canary now says it has “barely any funds” and cannot pay all its staff.
According to the outlet, Lloyds is “withholding a substantial amount of our money” and “has not explained why it has taken this action.” The Canary went back to the bank more than once looking for an answer. “Despite multiple communications from us, the bank has not been forthcoming with its reasoning,” it wrote.
Its editors called the move an “outrage” and said they had been “unceremoniously dropped into financial instability with no notice or explanation from Lloyds.” No warning came, and the bank has named no date for handing the money back.
The arrangement is one-sided. Lloyds holds the money and sets the timeline, and it answers to nobody for either. A long-standing customer can lose access overnight and never learn what triggered it. That silence is a large problem with debanking. The bank never has to prove its case because the damage lands before the target can push back.
So who gets to decide a news organization is too risky to bank? Right now, Lloyds does, privately, behind language it won’t explain. Asked about the account, a spokesperson would say only “We do not comment on individual customer accounts.” That answers nothing.
The Canary suspects its politics played a part and says it will not pretend otherwise. “Whilst we do not currently know the reasons behind our debanking, we cannot afford to be naive about this,” the outlet wrote, adding that other politically active people have been cut off by their banks lately. Guessing at motive is what customers are reduced to when a bank withholds the real one.
The Free Speech Union, which has fought its own banking battles, backed the outlet fast. A spokesperson called debanking “one of the most pernicious forms of cancellation that an individual or organisation can face” and said the group is in contact with The Canary and “stand ready to help.”
Britain wrote rules meant to curb exactly this. Since April 2026, a bank must give 90 days’ notice and a written reason before closing an account. The protection reaches only accounts opened after the rules took effect, so a decade-long customer like The Canary falls outside it.
None of this began with The Canary. Coutts, part of NatWest, dropped Reform UK leader Nigel Farage in 2023 after tagging him a politically exposed person, a row that cost chief executive Alison Rose her job and pushed debanking onto the front pages. A bank decides a customer’s views have become a liability, shuts the account, and reaches for regulation instead of an explanation.
The Canary had just announced a daily print newspaper, 25,000 copies across England and Wales. An outlet building toward a bigger platform suddenly cannot make payroll, not through any court order or public process, but because one bank chose to hold its money and stay silent.
Palestine Action Proscription: We Fight Back
By Craig Murray | July 1, 2026
I publish below in full the Note we have submitted to Court today to re-establish the separate Scottish judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action. Not only is the state doubling down on prosecution of pro-Palestine activists, a new National Security State Threats Bill is being fast tracked through parliament to extend the attack on free speech.
Under this bill receiving a benefit including “information” from a state entity designated as “hostile” by the Home Secretary will be a crime bringing up to 14 years in prison. So publishing casualty figures from Iranian sources, for example, will be terrorism. Publishing information about Ukrainian attacks on Russia will be illegal.
This is the relevant clause of the Bill. My emphasis:
17C Obtaining etc material benefits from a designated body
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person—
(i) obtains, accepts or retains a material benefit which is not an excluded benefit, or
(ii) obtains or accepts the provision of such a benefit to another person,
(b) the benefit is or was provided by or on behalf of a designated body, and
(c) the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, that the benefit is or was provided by or on behalf of a designated body.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person agrees to accept—
(i) a material benefit which is not an excluded benefit, or
(ii) the provision of such a benefit to another person,
(b) the benefit is to be provided by or on behalf of a designated body, and
(c) the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, that the benefit is to be provided by or on behalf of a designated body.
(3) Material benefits may include financial benefits, anything which has the potential to result in a financial benefit, and information…
Please note there is specifically no public interest defence, no journalism defence and it is to be illegal to receive true information. It is not about the spread of disinformation, it is about the spread of information contrary to the British state narrative. Receiving information from a designated enemy of the UK is the offence, whether you publish it or not.
There in no modern precedent for this in peacetime. It is being forced through all its parliamentary stages – three readings, amendments and two Lords sittings – in a single day. I have repeatedly said that liberal democracy has collapsed. I do not need further proof.
Under the current legislation, yesterday prominent international lawyer Dan Kovalik was detained in Liverpool, his phone and laptop seized and he was questioned about his support for Palestine. Dan is a lawyer. He is entitled to lawyer/client confidentiality. His clients include the President of Colombia and other international figures. The UK is a rogue state.
The UK state is currently attempting to gaslight us with a concerted campaign of messaging about a few millions in aid to Gaza – much of which is concentrated on assisting ethnic cleansing by various medical and educational routes for people to leave Gaza. But with Labour Friends of Israel member Andy Burnham to take over as PM with former Chair of Labour Friends of Israel James Purnell as his Chief of Staff, support for the Genocide will continue unabated.
The absurd National Security (State Threats) Bill shows that attack on dissidents and free speech will continue at home too. The debanking by Lloyds of The Canary is another prong of the extraordinary destruction of civil liberty under New Labour.
So I am determined not to bow to the sisting of the Scottish judicial review and we have lodged a motion to “reclaim” or restart proceedings.
We have not yet reached the actual Scottish judicial review or had any chance to give the arguments we will use there. It is my intention that we will attack the proscription in the most fundamental way, making these points among others:
- There is an active obligation on states to do everything possible to stop a Genocide. By contrast, the UK has done everything in its power to facilitate Genocide, including protecting its supply chain.
- It is patently absurd to call a non violent direct action group a terrorist organisation
- The state should not be treated as neutral or infallible by the courts. The false narrative on Iraqi WMD, and the terrible deaths and destruction to which that narrative led, should be a warning the state can get it very wrong.
- As a former senior civil servant who was in the FCO during that period, I can testify to the pressures on civil servants and agencies to produce the evidence and policy recommendation that Ministers wish to hear
- The evidence base produced by JTAC to support the proscription recommendation was fundamentally untrue. The Filton jury proved that the Met Police and JTAC assertions of escalating violence, carrying weapons with intent to harm, did not happen as a matter of fact. The jury rejected the aggravated burglary and violent disorder.
- Only one Palestine Action activist has ever been convicted of an offence of violence, and there the jury specifically found no intent
- Lady Justice Carr in the Appeal Court judgement both relied on Sheriff McCormick’s sentencing remarks in the Thales case. But there were no convictions of violence in the Thales case. Sheriff McCormick misrepresented the evidence. Last week he the Sheriff Appeal Court in Scotland overturned his finding of anti-Israeli racism against Mick Napier of Scottish Palestine Solidarity Committee. The inaccurate and frothing remarks of one zionist Sheriff are not a basis for proscription.
- Lady Justice Carr ruled that the Home Secretary must be given “appropriate latitude” and a “wide margin of appreciation” in security cases. But the Home Secretary should not be idealised. They are a politician, and in this case a politician who is parti pris. Yvette Cooper is massively financed by the Zionist lobby. The courts should operate in the real world not in an idealised and unrealistic one.
Lady Carr’s judgement is entirely and directly predicated on the notion that in any conflict in law between the state and the citizen, special deference should always be given to the state as more noble and trustworthy. That reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
To get heard at all we have to roll back Lord Young’s extraordinary ruling that the English Court of Appeal judgement should be accepted as law in Scotland in the interests of “comity”. This overturns centuries of doctrine on the separate jurisdiction of Scotland going back to the Treaty of Union itself – though it does reflect what had in truth been the unchallenged though illegal practice of deference to England in such matters. … continue
UK ‘Counter Terrorism Police’ Detain American Lawyer And Human Rights Activist For Criticism Of Israel
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 30, 2026
The UK’s Zionist owned police state continues to detain Israel critics on bogus terrorism charges, in this case against a well-known American human rights lawyer.
Dan Kovalik is a well-respected human rights lawyer and author who previously taught International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
Kovalik is currently representing Gustavo Petro, the president of Colombia.
He is a critic of Zionism and U.S. policy towards Iran, publishing the book “The Case for Palestine: Why It Matters and Why You Should Care” last year and publishing the book “The Plot to Attack Iran: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Iran” in 2018 .
For this, Kovalik was detained “at John Lennon International Airport in Liverpool, England” by counterterrorism police who seized his “phone, computer, fingerprints and DNA sample” over his “opposition to the Genocide on Gaza and the war on Iran.”
Kovalik wrote on X, “In the height of irony, I was detained at John Lennon International Airport in Liverpool, England by anti-terrorism police concerned about my opposition to the Genocide on Gaza and the war on Iran. They seized my phone, computer, fingerprints and DNA sample.”
Writer Nalia reported that Kovalik “was detained for approximately two and a half hours and interrogated extensively on his political views about Israel’s genocide in Palestine, Lebanese resistance organisation Hezbollah and on the war against Iran”.
She also reported that “Kovalik’s phone and laptop were seized along with his DNA, fingerprints, photos from multiple angles and copies of his bank and credit cards. After officers rifled through his luggage, they questioned Kovalik on the book he was carrying — a gift from a student by Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani, Palestine’s Children: Returning to Haifa & Other Stories — before he was released and free to continue on his journey.”
She also noted that “Despite informing officers that he is a practising lawyer and that his phone and laptop contain documents protected by legal professional privilege — including attorney-client privilege — Kovalik objected to their seizure, which a supervising police sergeant confirmed to Kovalik that he had properly raised privilege objections. Regardless of his objections, his electronic devices were retained ‘with intention to copy,’ raising serious questions about the protection of legally privileged material, client confidentiality and compliance with the safeguards governing legal privilege under Schedule 3 and its accompanying Code of Practice.”
Commenting on the detention of Kovalik, former MP George Galloway, who himself was previously detained at Gatwick Airport for his support of Palestine, said: “The Political Police in Britain are out of control.”
Journalists persecuted for exposing Ukrainian military’s crimes
By Lucas Leiroz | June 30, 2026
The Kiev regime has long been known for its authoritarian and dictatorial practices, constantly violating the most basic democratic principles and values, such as freedom of speech and the press. Journalists have been censored, arrested, sanctioned, and – in the most extreme cases – even murdered by the regime, revealing its deeply anti-democratic nature, despite Western propaganda’s insistence on portraying it as a “guardian of European values.”
In a recent incident involving violation of press freedom, Ukrainian military threatened to use force to “punish” journalists who exposed abuses committed by recruitment centers. An officer from Ukraine’s 425th Separate Assault Regiment “Skelia” (formerly “Skala”) recently threatened journalists who had revealed allegations of torture among the regiment’s recruits.
The journalists had previously reported various types of abuse within the unit, noting that new recruits were subjected to torture – with some even dying as a result of the physical mistreatment they endured. According to information shared by the journalists, at least 26 Skelia soldiers have died in the last six months. These deaths occurred at the unit’s training grounds, where recruits were forced to withstand severe torture.
The reported practices included “beatings, forced confinement, people being bound with tape or handcuffs, and cases of draftees with serious health issues being subject to grueling assault training.” It is important to note that forced mobilization policies in Ukraine are being implemented in a draconian manner; practically any man is mobilized once located by the authorities. Consequently, individuals with health issues or no prior military experience end up in these training centers, where they are subjected to rigorous physical tests for which they are neither physically nor mentally prepared.
The allegations caused an upheaval in Ukrainian society and generated intense public pressure on military authorities. To suppress the public outrage – particularly that of the victims’ families – the government decided to remove the unit’s commander, Lieutenant Colonel Yury Harkaviy, from his post. Investigations into the matter are ongoing, at least in theory. It remains unclear whether the commander and his team will face criminal charges for the torture and murder of the soldiers who died during training.
However, the authorities’ action against the unit’s commander does not appear to be truly effective. In practice, this seems to be merely a way to contain public pressure and mask what is actually happening: the persecution of the journalists involved in the report. An officer from the unit, Nikolay Kharlan, posted a video threatening the journalists, insulting them, and accusing them of “spreading misinformation for cash.” He claimed that no illegal acts occurred during the recruits’ training and harshly criticized the decision to remove his commander.
Kharlan criticized the government, accusing it of failing to fulfill its duty to protect Ukrainian military personnel. Furthermore, he stated that, given the government’s inaction, the troops themselves would take the initiative to protect their unit, thus suggesting that reprisals would be imposed on journalists. He also said he did not believe that 26 soldiers had died due to training abuses, describing the allegation as “Russian propaganda.”
“There should be criminal liability for this (…) [The government] removed itself from fulfilling its duties (…) In this case, the units of the armed forces will be able to defend themselves (…) Of the 26 people who died, 18 died in medical institutions – not at Skelia. This s**t is absolutely insane. Nine suicides? This information is false, and does not correspond to reality (…) [This is] Russian propaganda,” he said.
Although Kharlan spoke out against the government and threatened other Ukrainian citizens in his statement, no action has been taken by the authorities to punish him so far. This is due to a simple reason: the Ukrainian government lost control over its military long ago. Kiev is held hostage by military units formed by fanatical nationalists, with the formal authorities serving merely as the public face of an extremely violent and authoritarian dictatorial regime.
The decision to remove the commander will likely have only a temporary effect, intended to ease public pressure and prevent popular demonstrations in support of the victims’ families. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the military are taking the initiative to go after journalists – who, unless they take appropriate protective measures or flee the country, will face critical danger to their lives. The government will also do nothing to protect these journalists or prevent the military from attacking them, given that the government itself is known for constantly violating press freedom and turning a blind eye to crimes committed by the military.
This case clearly reveals the true nature of the Ukrainian regime, which bears no resemblance to the European media narratives of “democracy and freedom.” In reality, the Ukrainian people live under one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
EU’s New Creator Press Passes Come With a Loyalty Test
By Cam Wakefield | Reclaim The Net | June 29, 2026
The Council of the European Union has decided that from July, online creators can attend EU summits and ministerial meetings to make videos for YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Fine. But the guidance to member states includes one odd instruction: don’t pick anyone who has “published views against EU values.”
What are EU values? Nobody will say. That’s the useful thing about a vague rule. You can point it wherever you like and never have to justify it. Posted something awkward about migration?
Wondered whether the euro was a good idea? Suggested the Commission gets things wrong? Possibly against EU values, possibly not, depending on who’s reading your back catalog that morning.
There’s no list of banned opinions or a review. An official just looks through your old posts and makes a call.
Now imagine them trying this on actual journalists. Guidance that said: nominate reporters to cover the summit, but exclude any who’ve expressed views against EU values. The newspapers would lose their minds, and Brussels knows it, which is exactly why it would never write that sentence down for the press corps. Journalists come with a long tradition of being a nuisance to power, and a fair number of lawyers to back it up.
Creators don’t have that armor. There’s no press freedom group ready to defend some bloke with 200,000 followers who makes explainer videos about the Council. So the EU runs an opinion test, files it under “eligibility criteria,” and assumes nobody will notice it’s the same thing it would never ask of a reporter.
They’re doing the same job, though. A creator explaining a Brussels decision to teenagers who’ll never buy a newspaper is doing journalism, whether or not anyone hands him a badge. Plenty of them reach more people than the wire reporters in the room. The only real difference is that one group has institutional defenders and the other has a phone.
Which leaves the EU with an awkward question. Is a free press one of these “values” or not? If it is, the rule contradicts itself, because the whole point of a free press is being able to publish views against you. You can’t vet your reporters for loyalty and call it press freedom in the same breath. And if a free press isn’t on the list, then they’ve told you what’s actually on it by what they left off. An institution that believed in free expression wouldn’t reach for an opinion test at all.
The clever part needs no rejection to work. The moment this guidance exists, anyone who wants a press pass starts editing himself. Skip the criticism about the latest policy. Drop the joke about von der Leyen. Keep it balanced, just in case. The Council doesn’t need to silence anyone when it can make people nervous enough to do it themselves. There’s also no paper trail, because nobody was ever formally told no.
The scheme arrives wrapped in good intentions, naturally. Brussels calls it widening engagement and bringing the institutions closer to the public. The other rules are reasonable enough: you need a real audience at home, a track record on politics and European affairs, no big sponsorship deals, no political office. Then the values clause does the job it was put there to do, sorting the approved from the unapproved. What you get isn’t a press pool so much as a fan club with lanyards.
The politicians who said anything were the ones already out of favor. Belgium’s Gerolf Annemans, a Vlaams Belang MEP, went for sarcasm: “I would go even further: nothing should be allowed to be questioned.” Lucas Hartong, formerly a Dutch MEP for the PVV, was drier, noting that “the EU and genuine democracy don’t exactly go hand in hand.” The Sweden Democrats said the whole thing showed “the EU elite is becoming increasingly desperate.”
Take the word “values” off the front and look at what’s underneath. The EU writes the definition, hands it to national governments, and uses it to decide which independent voices get to film its leaders. An institution that trusted its own legitimacy would open the doors and let the unflattering footage happen. Screening the cameras for loyalty first tells you how confident it really feels. And the creators most likely to pass? The ones who were never going to ask anything difficult anyway.
Who Wants to Live in This Digital Prison?
Truthstream Media | June 28, 2026
Truthstream Media Can Be Found Here:
Our First Film: TheMindsofMen.net
Our First Series: Vimeo.com/ondemand/trustgame
Site: TruthstreamMedia.com
X: @TruthstreamNews
Backup Ch: Vimeo.com/truthstreammedia
DONATE: http://bit.ly/2aTBeeF
Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX
Google’s New reCAPTCHA Wants Your Camera Access and 21 Points of Your Hand
The same company that monetizes everything you do online would like to switch on your camera
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | June 27, 2026
Google wants a look at your hands before it lets you through. The company’s newest reCAPTCHA check, rolling out now as a test, asks you to switch on your camera and wave at it so an algorithm can decide whether you’re a human or a bot.
That wave is less casual than it looks. The system records a short video of your hand and pulls 21 hand-landmark coordinates from it, mapping your finger joints, your palm geometry, and the way you move in real time.
Google describes the purpose as liveness detection, a way for websites to fend off automated account creation, credential-stuffing, and other fraud. But this is still a biometric scan, collected so you can prove you’re a person and still involves turning on your cameras for Google.
Google has lined up the promises you would expect. The company says the footage is deleted once verification finishes, no audio is recorded, and the video is never tied to your identity. Its documentation adds that nothing goes to third parties and the data serves security alone, then points to the Google Privacy Policy for how everything is used and stored, a policy elastic enough to cover almost anything.
For now the feature seems optional. People who cannot perform the gestures still get the older puzzles, with Google saying reCAPTCHA “continues to provide visual and audio challenges” while it develops alternatives.
However, we all know that optional today is rarely optional forever and the older challenges survive partly because the gesture check is still being tested.
The reassurances rest on trust and Google has spent years giving people reasons to hold it back. This is a company whose business runs on gathering and monetizing personal data, now asking to switch on your camera and read your hand.
UK Speech Regulator’s Telegram Questions Point Toward Private Chats
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 21, 2026
Britain’s communications regulator is pressing Telegram to find ways of seeing what its users say to one another in private. Ofcom has begun questioning the messaging app about how it detects and prevents illegal incitement, following the conviction of a Ukrainian man for arson attacks on a car and properties connected to Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Roman Lavrynovych, 22, was reportedly drawn in through a public Telegram channel that advertised money to post and print leaflets, and that channel broke no laws. It offered legal work and told anyone interested to “contact in private messages.” The real offers, first for the poster work and later for the arson, reportedly moved into one-to-one chats away from public view.
A spokesperson for Ofcom said it had contacted the app “to seek further clarification” because the arsonist had been directed on Telegram by a handler linked to Russia.
The regulator frames this as a preliminary stage ahead of any formal investigation, though the questions point in one direction. If nothing illegal appeared in the open channel, the only place left to look is inside the private conversations between individual users.
That request carries a cost the regulator has not spelled out. Telegram cannot scan private messages for signs of incitement without reading private messages, all of them, belonging to everyone, not the handful that turn out to involve a crime.
The arson plot stayed hidden in personal chats precisely because that is where people expect to speak without an audience. Asking Telegram to surface that content means asking it to treat ordinary private conversation as something to be inspected by default.
It is not even settled what “private messages” covers here and the ambiguity raises the stakes. Telegram’s standard chats sit on its servers. Its secret chats use end-to-end encryption that the company itself cannot read, but only when turned on, and the feature is not turned on by default.
Court reporting has not made clear which kind carried the arson offers. Should Ofcom expect detection inside encrypted chats, it is effectively asking Telegram to build a route around its own encryption, most likely by scanning messages on the user’s device before they are sealed. That hollows out the protection for the people who relied on it. A message read before it is encrypted was never really encrypted.
A single conviction has become the occasion to ask a platform how it inspects private speech in general and the answer Ofcom seems to want is closer inspection.
The push runs in one direction across the Online Safety Act, through age checks, hash-matching against databases of banned images, automated tools to flag grooming and self-harm content, and now questions about catching incitement inside private chats.
Detection keeps moving inward, from public posts toward the conversations people assumed only their recipient would see. Real harms justify the steps one at a time and the cumulative effect normalizes a new baseline, where a messaging app is expected to read along and act as an extension of the regulator’s reach. The Act backs that expectation with fines of up to £18 million ($24M) or a tenth of global revenue, which is leverage enough to make most companies listen.
Al-Jazeera demands punishment for Israeli officials following latest assassination of cameraman
The Cradle | June 21, 2026
Al-Jazeera Media Network condemned on 20 June Israel’s “deliberate killing” of one of its journalists in Gaza, Ahmad Washah, while calling on the international community to punish Israeli officials for this and other crimes against its media workers.
Ahmad Washah, a cameraman for Al-Jazeera Mubasher, was killed by an Israeli drone strike on a house in Al-Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza on Saturday.
He is the 12th Al-Jazeera media worker to be killed in Gaza since Israel began its genocide of Palestinians in October 2023.
The network called on “the international community and legal institutions to take urgent, practical measures to hold the Israeli officials involved in these appalling crimes accountable,” the statement added.
Washah’s brother, Mohammad, was killed in an Israeli strike just two months earlier, in April, also while working as a correspondent for Al-Jazeera Mubasher. Before Mohammed’s death, the brothers worked together as a team, with Ahmad filming for Mohammad.
“Together, they formed a media duo that documented the suffering of the Palestinian people and the unfolding events of the war,” Al-Jazeera stated.
After Mohammad’s death, Ahmad also took care of his late brother’s children.
On Saturday, the network denounced “the continuation of the crimes committed by the Israeli occupation forces against its correspondents and staff in Gaza.”
Al-Jazeera said it was determined to take all legal measures to prosecute the killers of its journalists. The Qatar-based channel stressed it will continue to cover Israel’s crimes against Palestinians in Gaza despite the Israeli army’s attempts to silence the voices of its correspondents in the enclave.
Israel has killed at least 262 journalists and media workers since the start of Israel’s genocide, according to the Gaza Government Media Office.
In August 2025, Israel killed Al-Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif and four of his colleagues in an airstrike in Gaza. Before his killing, Sharif became one of the most recognizable media voices from the front lines of northern Gaza.
In December 2023, his 90-year-old father was killed when an Israeli airstrike struck their family home in Jabalia. Sharif said the killing of his father came after Israeli officials threatened him by phone to cease his coverage.
Since October 2023, the ongoing war in Gaza has claimed the lives of countless other Palestinian journalists, including Al Jazeera staff members such as correspondent Ismail al-Ghoul, cameraman Samer Abu Daqqa, and correspondent Hossam Shabat, who were killed while reporting on the ground.
In May 2022, Israeli occupation forces shot dead another Al-Jazeera journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, a US-Palestinian citizen, while she was covering an Israeli military operation in the West Bank city of Jenin.
Israel claimed she was killed by unintentional fire by its forces. However, multiple independent probes concluded that an Israeli military sniper killed her.
Israel has detained another 50 journalists since October 2023, holding them in detention facilities and prisons where torture and rape is common. Another three Palestinian journalists remain missing.
More than 420 journalists have been injured covering the genocide, which has killed 73,000 Palestinians by the most conservative estimates. Independent estimates reach into the hundreds of thousands of dead, in large part due to the direct effects of war.
Some of the wounded journalists have suffered serious injuries, leading to amputations and permanent disabilities.
Israel is waging the war in a bid to destroy Gaza and forcibly expel its roughly 2 million Palestinians. Israeli political and religious leaders wish to annex the strip to build Jewish settlements on the ruins of Palestinian cities and villages.
The Targeted Assassination of Studies Showing Vaccines Cause Injury
Since they can’t win on the merits, they’ve resorted to other tactics
By Aaron Siri | Injecting Freedom | June 18, 2026
A journalist from The Guardian recently contacted me for a comment on vaccine-related studies I have previously cited in my work. The publishers of these studies have decided—years after publication—that these studies were so flawed and “dangerous to public health” that they needed to be retracted or investigated. The journalist wanted to know if I would amend my book and my recent ACIP presentation now that these studies were under attack.
My response:
“I welcome the media noting the targeted assassination of articles that do not fit the religious belief of vaccine proponents; this is also exemplified by the media’s lack of interest in the hundreds of other articles, reviews, and trial documents from my book and ACIP presentation which make plain that the claim vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ is not supported by the available evidence.”
So which studies are under fire? You won’t be surprised that they are on some of the biggest hot-button topics when it comes to vaccine injury:
1. REMOVED: Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database 1990–2019 and review of the medical literature (Neil Miller, 2021). This study has not just been retracted—it has been removed. Completely wiped. This is reserved for only the most egregious publication offenses. Elsevier says it found “serious methodological flaws” and that the paper “may pose potential risks to public health.” Author Neil Miller explains their concerns were “either insignificant or plainly incorrect.” He has shared his emails with Elsevier publicly, so you can be the judge. A copy of the study can still be found here.
2. RETRACTED: Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism Diagnosis, NHIS 1997–2002 (Carolyn Gallagher & Melody Goodman, 2010). This paper was published sixteen years ago. Sixteen years. And only now was it retracted after the publisher claimed that “due to fundamental methodological flaws the study’s conclusions are unsound.” The authors stand behind the study and noted “many of the recent criticisms of the paper are consistent with what we recognized and noted at the time.”
3. UNDER INVESTIGATION: Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders (Brian Hooker & Neil Miller, 2020). This study now has an “expression of concern” attached to it that says the study is “under investigation.” Miller stated that the investigation has to do with false allegations that the data came from another source and was not disclosed.
4. UNDER INVESTIGATION: Quantification of residual plasmid DNA and SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada (David Speicher, Jessica Rose, & Kevin McKernan, 2025). The publisher may regret kicking the hornet’s nest on this one. Rose and McKernan have been posting regularly about their study, their conversations with the publisher, and how it turns out the person trying to get their study retracted is apparently one of the study’s original peer reviewers and who also happens to have received funding from the same German organization, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, that provided substantial funding to BioNTech. Go figure.
Behind each of these attacks is a plain desire to wipe from the record any evidence of vaccine harm and to chill the publication of any future studies that report vaccine harm.
Every scientist who values scientific integrity should publicly denounce these tactics. Anything less is not science. It is ideology.
Featured Video
Racist Seinfeld Dances for Joy as Bibi Unveils His New Map
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
TV Drama Review
Japanese drama projects Japan’s wartime atrocities onto Chinese characters
Global Times | October 25, 2026
By portraying Chinese characters as perpetrators of ruthless violence while casting Japanese Self-Defense Forces (SDF) intelligence operatives as defenders, the season 2 of the Japanese drama Vivant has recently drawn criticism from Chinese netizens, who argue that its depiction turns historical reality on its head while ignoring Japan’s wartime atrocities.
The TBS drama series – a spy suspense story in which an alleged unofficial intelligence unit of the SDF operates across the globe — has attracted a passionate fanbase. Its currently airing season 2 opened with a household rating of 18.8 percent, the highest for a TV drama this year, according toa commentary article by Japanese media Toyo Keizai.
What draws attention is the portrayal of the enemies in the series, the article noted. Scenes in which the Chinese organization subjects kidnapped members of the SDF unit to brutal torture are repeated with unrelenting intensity.
It is rare for Japanese TV dramas to explicitly portray a real-life country as the enemy, the article noted.
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi also made a reference to the drama, saying that she has been recording Vivant and hopes to binge-watch it over the year-end and New Year holidays, according to Japanese media outlets.
China’s CCTV News report on Sunday revealed that the drama features scenes in which Chinese personnel cut off the fingers of and stab Japanese intelligence operatives in the abdomen. Such acts bear striking similarities to the torture inflicted on Chinese nationals by invading Japanese troops during the World War II.
The drama distorts the truth by attributing these atrocities to modern Chinese characters. Beneath the surface, it subtly glorifies Japan’s cross-border overseas operations, blurs the functional boundaries of the SDF and implicitly promotes an expansionist narrative, per CCTV News. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- EU facing trillion-euro debt hole while seeking more cash for Kiev
- How US, Europe, Persian Gulf states exhausted missile stockpiles, splurged billions to defend Israel
- Up in arms… Koreans reject U.S. empire’s plan to make South Korea the next Ukraine
- Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia could advance region-led security framework in Tehran: FM spox
- Netizens condemn Japanese drama for projecting Japan’s wartime atrocities onto Chinese characters
- Racist Seinfeld Dances for Joy as Bibi Unveils His New Map
- A West Bank War for Netanyahu’s Election Campaign, Could It Backfire?
- Yemen denounces European Parliament’s ‘hypocritical’ push to blacklist Ansarullah
- Qalibaf: UAE’s UN bid aims to ‘clear the runway’ for ‘Greater Israel’, whitewash genocide
- Pakistan reopens Iran border after boosting security: Report
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
