Using Medicalization to Suppress the Exercise of First Amendment Rights
By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | March 19, 2025
A repugnant tactic of authoritarianism is categorizing people’s desire for or exercise of freedom as illness that government should suppress. An example of this was the deeming of dissidents in the Soviet Union as mentally ill to justify their detention and punishment.
In America, there has long been resistance against an effort to similarly have the United States government medicalize the exercise of gun rights as a means to circumvent the constitutional protection of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment. In the 1990s this resistance led to congressional imposition of a spending prohibition against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) advocating or promoting gun control.
The effort to prevent the US government from using medicalization to crack down on gun rights appears to have had a success in the new Trump administration with the removal from the HHS website of a guns and public health advisory from the preceding Biden administration. Abené Clayton reported Monday at the Guardian :
The Trump administration has removed former surgeon general Vivek Murthy’s advisory on gun violence as a public health issue from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ website. This move was made to comply with Donald Trump’s executive order to protect second amendment rights, a White House official told the Guardian.
The strange thing is that while the Trump administration appears to be taking action to cut off HHS threats to Second Amendment rights, HHS is helping lead Trump administration efforts to expand US government threats to First Amendment rights. Medicalization to restrict free speech, assembly, and petition is on the ascendancy at HHS as demonstrated by a March 3 announcement by HHS, the Department of Education (ED), and the General Services Administration (GSA) concerning the US government’s Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, created the month before, reviewing actions or inactions of Columbia University relative to “antisemitism” and potential penalties that may be imposed upon that university. This is all justified in the announcement by reference to a January 29 executive order of President Donald Trump that employs a peculiarly expanded definition of antisemitism incorporated into an executive order from Trump’s first term that includes positions against the Israel government in addition to the commonly understood definition that concerns positions against an ethnicity or religion.
“Anti-Semitism – like racism – is a spiritual and moral malady that sickens societies and kills people with lethalities comparable to history’s most deadly plagues,” declared HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the announcement. That is medicalization in a nutshell: Your “bad thoughts” are a plague the government must stop to protect public health.
Four days later — on March 7, HHS, ED, and GSA were back with a new announcement that, due to review by the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, about 400 million dollars in US grants to Columbia University had been canceled, with more grant cancelations expected to follow. Then, on March 13 the HHS, ED, and GSA followed up with a letter to Columbia University using the denial of funding as leverage to demand the university crack down on free speech, assembly and petition, as well as change, and even hand to US government control over, a variety of university policies and procedures.
Meanwhile, the US government is making an example of Mahmoud Khalil who was involved in protests challenging US foreign policy and related to Israel at Columbia University. The US government has arrested and detained him, and is seeking his deportation, because Khalil apparently did nothing more than exercise First Amendment protected rights.
These actions against Columbia University are not one-off. A February 28 press release from the Department of Justice (DOJ) listed ten universities — Columbia University plus George Washington University; Harvard University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Northwestern University; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California — as subject to visits from the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism because their campuses “have experienced antisemitic incidents since October 2023.” Expect the list to keep growing.
Leo Terrell, described in the February DOJ press release as “[l]eading Task Force member and Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,” made clear in an included quote that the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism means business. He stated:
The Task Force’s mandate is to bring the full force of the federal government to bear in our effort to eradicate Anti-Semitism, particularly in schools. These visits are just one of many steps this Administration is taking to deliver on that commitment.
It looks like we are witnessing the beginning of a major crackdown on First Amendment rights. The US government, however, will claim this development is nothing to worry about because the purpose is to make America healthy again.
NSW Premier Chris Minns Calls Free Speech a Government Liability
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | March 18, 2025
Chris Minns, Premier of New South Wales, Australia, has done something that politicians rarely do — he’s said the quiet part out loud. In a rare moment of honesty, he’s admitted that the government sees free speech as a liability.
“I recognize and I fully said from the beginning, we don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States, and the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multicultural community and have people live in peace.”
Meaning: Your rights are negotiable, and the price is social harmony — as defined by the state.
The absurdity of this argument is hard to overstate. Historically, the country thrived on its rough-and-tumble political culture, where disagreements were hashed out in public rather than smothered under layers of legalese. The idea that Australians must now muzzle themselves to accommodate imported conflicts is an outright admission of failure by the political class.
Minns and his allies argue that restricting speech is necessary because multiculturalism has made Australia too volatile to handle open debate. But let’s take a step back. Why is Australia suddenly on edge? Is it because everyday Australians have become more hateful and intolerant, or is it because the government has spent decades encouraging division through identity politics?
The immediate context for Minns’ comments is the recent passage of hate speech laws, pushed through Parliament in a frenzy of moral panic. The justification? A crisis that turned out to be a hoax, reportedly concocted by criminals looking for lighter sentences — something the government allegedly knew early on.
MLC John Ruddick didn’t mince words when he addressed this in Parliament:
“Parliament was misinformed by the Minns government about the urgency of the bills referred to in one A, B, and C… this House calls on the Minns government to repeal the bills… and apologize for both misleading this Parliament, preventing a Parliamentary Inquiry, and further curbing free speech principles by these reactionary bills.”
Minns’ response? Doubling down:
“There have been some that have been agitating in the Parliament to nullify the laws to remove them off the statute books. Think about what kind of toxic message that would send to the NSW community.
“And I think the advocates for those changes need to explain what do they want people to have the right to say?
“What kind of racist abuse do they want to see or to be able to lawfully see on the streets of Sydney?”
This is an old trick — framing any challenge to speech restrictions as a demand for open racism. It’s dishonest, it’s lazy, and it conveniently ignores the fact that these laws will never be enforced evenly.
These laws will be used against dissenters. Against people who question government policies. Against critics of the ruling ideology.
If democracy means anything, it means the right to speak freely — even when that speech is unpopular. Even when it makes politicians uncomfortable. Because when free speech is sacrificed on the altar of “social harmony,” what you’re left with isn’t peace — it’s silence. And that silence is exactly what governments crave.
Rick Sanchez “threatened with prison” over work with RT
RT | March 18, 2025
Former RT host and longtime television journalist Rick Sanchez has spoken about his experience with the Russian broadcaster in a newly released interview with Tucker Carlson. Once one of RT’s highest-rated anchors, Sanchez revealed that he was forced out of his job last summer under pressure from the administration of former US President Joe Biden, which he says even threatened him with prison over ties with RT. He also revealed that his departure was foreshadowed by an unexpected phone call from an “old friend,” a warning which he described as a case study in the decline of free speech in the US.
Press freedom in the US
Sanchez has criticized the state of press freedom in the US, particularly under the Biden administration. The veteran journalist expressed concerns over increasing restrictions on alternative media voices, arguing that journalists who deviate from government-approved narratives often face professional consequences. He described a growing atmosphere of intolerance for dissenting perspectives, particularly regarding coverage of international conflicts.
Sanchez claimed that mainstream media outlets have become overly aligned with government interests, limiting diverse viewpoints and discouraging critical journalism. “If you don’t toe the line, if you don’t say what they want you to say, you’re out,” he said, emphasizing the pressures faced by journalists covering global affairs, especially those related to Russia and Ukraine. He suggested that reporters are under immense pressure to conform to prevailing narratives or risk retaliation.
Experience working for RT
Reflecting on his time at the Russian news network RT, Sanchez described it as an unexpectedly positive experience. He recalled initially joining the network with some hesitation but soon realizing that he was given considerable editorial freedom.
Sanchez noted that, unlike in many Western outlets, he was not instructed on what to say or how to frame his reports. He characterized his time at RT as “almost nirvana” in terms of journalistic independence, a stark contrast to his experience in US media. However, he also acknowledged that working for a Russian-backed network came with significant scrutiny, particularly from American authorities.
Mysterious phone call from an “old friend”
Sanchez also revealed that he had received a cryptic telephone call from an “old friend” shortly before he was forced to cut ties with RT. He described the conversation as unsettling, with the caller warning him that the people at the government agency he now works for “don’t necessarily like some of the things that you’re saying.”
While he did not disclose the caller’s identity, Sanchez suggested that the person had inside knowledge of actions being taken against him and that the call was meant to intimidate him into resigning before more severe repercussions followed.
Threats of prison
Expanding on the pressures he faced, Sanchez stated that he was not only forced to leave RT but also threatened with legal action. He alleged that US authorities made it clear that his association with the network could result in imprisonment.
“They were like, no, you violate the order and you’re going to prison,” Sanchez revealed, emphasizing the seriousness of the threats. While he did not specify the exact nature of the charges he was warned about, he argued that such actions demonstrate how far the US government is willing to go to suppress dissenting voices.
US tendency to create a villain
One of the central themes of Sanchez’s interview was the American tendency to create a villain in political discourse. He observed that the US media frequently needs an adversary to rally public opinion against, whether it be Russia, China, or a domestic political figure.
Sanchez warned that this pattern stifles critical thinking and forces audiences into a black-and-white worldview where certain countries or individuals are portrayed as purely evil while others are beyond reproach. He argued that this mindset contributes to unnecessary conflicts and prevents meaningful diplomatic engagement.
Sanchez’s perspective on the state of US media
Sanchez offered a harsh critique of American journalism, claiming that many mainstream outlets have abandoned their role as independent watchdogs. He accused the media of prioritizing corporate and political interests over factual reporting, resulting in a narrow and often misleading portrayal of global events.
He further claimed that media consolidation has contributed to the problem, as a handful of powerful companies control most of the news Americans consume. This, according to Sanchez, has led to an environment where only certain viewpoints are allowed airtime, while dissenting opinions are marginalized or outright censored.
Pinning hopes on Trump to reverse trend
Looking ahead, Sanchez expressed hope that US President Donald Trump could lead to a reversal of sanctions imposed on RT and other alternative media sources. He suggested that Trump, who has had a contentious relationship with mainstream US media, might be more inclined to allow greater media pluralism.
“The Trump administration will undo this because things are moving and there’s negotiations now with Russia,” Sanchez said. “And I understand the Trump administration is trying to remove some of the silly sanctions that we have on them that are just ridiculous.”
Sanchez argued that lifting restrictions on foreign-backed outlets would be a step toward restoring genuine press freedom and allowing Americans access to a broader range of perspectives. He concluded that, regardless of political affiliations, the suppression of alternative voices ultimately harms democracy.
UK Terrorism Law Overhaul Blasted as “Unacceptable” Threat to Free Speech
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 16, 2025
Jonathan Hall, a UK government-appointed Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has dubbed reforms announced by PM Keir Starmer in this legislative area as “unacceptable” – specifically in how that would restrict freedom of expression.
These changes came as part of the Labour government’s reaction to the Southport murders and subsequent protests and unrest.
The issue addressed by Hall’s report published this week is the legal definition of terrorism, and whether it needs to be expanded to acts of extreme violence like those perpetrated by Axel Rudakubana in Southport last summer.
Hall’s overall conclusion is that there is no need to amend the definition of terrorism, as it is “already wide.”
One of the implications, should proposed changes be adopted, concerns speech, writes the terrorism watchdog. He warns about risks involving “major false positives” – i.e., persons that would get prosecuted although they cannot be considered terrorists “by any stretch of the imagination.”
However, there is also the issue of definition expansion into what Hall refers to as novel territory.
“For example, any person who glorified ‘extreme violence’ would be at risk of arrest and prosecution as a terrorist. People swapping violent war footage would be at risk of encouraging terrorism, resulting in unacceptable restriction on freedom of expression,” he writes.
Hall also argues against the notion that it is possible to examine the browsing history of a perpetrator like Rudakubana and from that alone deduce which point in his online activities fatefully influenced his real world actions.
Expansion of the definition of terrorism to include such crimes – as essentially a way to give the authorities greater powers – is not likely to be effective for the purposes declared by the government, Hall suggests.
Many opponents of the UK government’s decisions and initiatives in the wake of the Southport murders have been warning that redefining legislation paves the way for greater mass surveillance capabilities.
Hall thinks that expectations when it comes to actually dealing with extreme violence in the proposed way might be unrealistic.
“There is no supercomputer or algorithm that can magically scan all online communications and tell who is an attacker and who is a fantasist,” he observes.
In order to avoid what the report describes as an extremely high risk of unintended consequences of rushed changes to the definition of terrorism, Hall advises the government to consider “a new offense, adapted from terrorism legislation, to deal with non-terrorist mass casualty attack-planning.”
Harvard Law School moves closer to divestment from Israel following referendum
Press TV – March 15, 2025
In the latest move by pro-Palestinian students at US universities, the Harvard Law School (HLS) student body has successfully passed a referendum urging the university to divest from the occupying Tel Aviv regime.
The resolution, which called on Harvard to “divest from weapons, surveillance technology, and other companies aiding violations of international humanitarian law, including Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine,” passed with 72.7 percent of votes in favor, with 842 students participating.
Nearly 2,000 students attend Harvard Law School, according to the university’s newspaper, The Harvard Crimson.
The university’s Palestine Solidarity Committee celebrated the move, calling it a landslide victory that took place “despite federal crackdown and admin’s repression on student activism for Palestine.”
“[US President Donald] Trump cannot repress the student movement for Palestine,” the group said in a statement amid the US president’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests across American universities
“The university must answer our call and divest from companies that profit from Palestinian annihilation,” it added.
The referendum was first proposed in a petition by student group Law Students for a Free Palestine (LSFP), which passed the 300-signature threshold needed to trigger a Student Government referendum in February.
In a press release, HLS LSFP organizer Irene Ameena commended the result as a rebuke of Trump.
“The Trump administration’s threats are meant to scare us into submission, but this referendum shows that those efforts only strengthen our solidarity with Palestine,” she said.
Thursday night’s results mark the second time a Harvard student body has voted in favor of divesting from Israel.
The call for divestment generally entails calling on institutions to cut economic and any other relevant ties with Israel as a form of protest against its occupation of the Palestinian territories, and more recently its bloody onslaught in Gaza which has killed over 61,000 Palestinians since October 7, 2023.
In June last year, students at the Harvard School of Public Health voted to demand that Harvard divest from Israel, and governments at the Law School, Harvard Divinity School, and the Graduate School of Design have all made similar calls too.
Far-Right Betar group sends list of thousands of pro-Palestinian activists to Trump admin. for deportation
Press TV – March 15, 2025
The American branch of the Betar Zionist movement, Betar US, says it has sent “thousands of names” of Palestine defenders to the administration of President Donald Trump for potential arrest and deportation, as part of its new smear campaign targeting participants in pro-Palestine protests across the country.
The far-right group made the remarks on social media on Friday, stressing that “Jihadis have no place in civilized nations.”
This comes as critics have voiced concern over Betar’s activities and ongoing “deportation efforts,” which involve documenting protest attendees and reporting them to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Earlier this week, Betar said, “We told you we have been working on deportations and will continue to do so. Expect naturalized citizens to start being picked up within the month. You heard it here first. Those who support jihad and intifada and originate in terrorist states will be sent back to those lands.”
The group — which took credit for the arrest of Palestinian student-activist and US Green Card holder Mahmoud Khalil by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for protesting the Israeli regime’s brutal war on the Gaza Strip — further named Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian studying philosophy at Columbia University in New York City, as its next target.
On Friday, US immigration officers announced the arrest of another activist who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, one of the most prestigious schools in the country.
Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian from the occupied West Bank, was detained for allegedly overstaying her expired student visa, the DHS said in a statement.
She had previously been arrested in April 2024 for taking part in protests at Columbia University, the statement added.
The DHS further noted that another student, Ranjani Srinivasani, who has Indian citizenship, chose to “self-deport” by leaving the US earlier this week.
The Trump administration has also set a deadline for Columbia University to cede control of one of its academic departments over a scholarship critical of Israel.
Back in January, Trump signed an executive order, pledging to deport foreign students who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests.
Following the detention of Khalil, Trump declared it was “the first of many to come,” labeling Khalil a “radical foreign pro-Hamas student” without providing any evidence.
He emphasized that his administration would adopt a strict stance against any pro-Palestinian activities within American universities.
Founded in 1923 by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a Zionist figure, and named after Brit Yosef Trumpeldor, Betar US actively spreads Zionist propaganda and in recent months, the group has intensified efforts to identify foreign students in the US who participate in anti-Israel protests, seeking their deportation.
The extremist group is using facial recognition technology and social media to monitor and intimidate pro-Palestine activists, reporting them to US immigration authorities for potential deportation.
This crackdown on free speech has sparked outrage, with critics condemning the group’s tactics as an attempt to suppress dissent and stifle advocacy for Palestinian rights.
Pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League has recently designated Betar as a hate group, after it responded to the publication of a list of thousands of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces by saying on its account on X, “Not enough. We demand blood in Gaza!”
University crackdown on Palestine solidarity encampments a grievous violation of Charter freedoms
By Laurie Adkin | Canadian Dimention | March 9, 2025
If the repression of Palestine solidarity protests on Canadian campuses is permitted to go unchallenged, we risk a serious erosion of Charter-protected rights and freedoms. The cases of the Universities of Calgary and Alberta highlight what is at stake.
In May 2024, the University of Calgary executive[1] called in the police to forcibly remove the Palestine solidarity encampment on that campus within hours of its appearance. The University of Alberta executive quickly followed suit, deploying riot police to drive members of the People’s University for Palestine (PU4P) from the campus. The executives thus revealed the vacuity of their institutional slogans and their unwillingness to defend university autonomy from political direction. University records[2] and media reports show that United Conservative Party government officials were urging the deployment of police against the universities’ students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community supporters.
Since October 2023, university executives have been implementing security regimes that put their students, staff, and faculty under continual surveillance and subject them to policing that not long ago would have been unthinkable. The Kent report confirms that the University of Alberta Protective Services and the Edmonton Police Service collaborate in surveillance of the conversations, social media posts, and activities of students, staff, and faculty on campus (using patrols, video cameras, and facial recognition technology). Police presence on campus has become routine. Operating procedures for protests were amended unilaterally by executives on both campuses in May 2024 in anticipation of the Palestine solidarity encampments. The result is that the environment for freedom of expression on campuses has been significantly degraded. However, the failure of university executives to stand up for constitutional freedoms is a grievous abdication of democratic duty to all citizens. Given what is at stake, it is urgent that court challenges to their actions be initiated, and that those responsible be required to apologize and make reparation to those who were traumatized and whose freedoms of political expression and assembly were unreasonably denied.
The UCalgary’s executive has tried to establish the legality of its actions by commissioning a consultancy report described by legal experts as “superficial.” The UAlberta executive no doubt hopes that the Report on the Encampment they commissioned from retired Alberta Court of King’s Bench Justice, Adèle Kent, will close the book on its decision to deploy police against the PU4P. The Kent report concluded that “the administration’s ability to have the police dismantle the encampment was reasonable and justifiable under the Charter” (78). This opinion—which is not a judicial ruling—is unsubstantiated by evidence and hinges on an incomplete (and often contradictory) review of the legal tests required to arrive at such a conclusion.
UAlberta President Bill Flanagan issued a cluster of statements in May 2024 attempting to justify the forcible removal of the PU4P by police on the grounds that it posed “serious and potentially life-threatening risks” to “university community members and members of the public,” and that its removal was intended to “ensure public safety and security.” The evidence—including highly credible first-hand testimony—effectively eviscerated these claims; even Justice Kent and campus security agreed the PU4P presented no threats to anyone’s safety at the time the police were sent in.
What the executive and the justice turned to, then, to justify the camp’s removal was the possibility of future threats that could be (and were) imagined by the president’s executive council and the police. One fear they raised was that counter-protestors might show up on campus and altercations between the groups might ensue. There was no indication at the time that such events were likely, but even if they had been, we should question the logic of the argument that is being made here for the denial of Charter freedoms of expression and assembly. If the possibility of a future counter-protest that might be violent is considered grounds to ban otherwise peaceful political expression and assembly, then effectively, these Charter freedoms are null and void.
The “community safety” pretext offered by President Flanagan further lacks credibility because alternatives were available to ensure the safety of the PU4P participants that entailed far less risk of harm than the option that was chosen (sending in riot police at the crack of dawn). In this regard, the executive’s decision clearly fails the Charter tests of “least impairment” and “rationality” in relation to its supposed objective. Members of the executive chose not to meet with the PU4P, instead spending hours in “crisis management” meetings among themselves and with government officials and the police, grasping at pretexts to simply get rid of the protestors without having to answer their demands. They misled students and the public about their intentions, concealing their decision to deploy the police from student leaders and implying that negotiations were in progress when this was not true. This is the kind of bad faith treatment to which pro-Palestinian student activists have become accustomed.
We cannot overlook the likelihood that these Palestinian solidarity encampments were labelled security threats because of the relentless pressures on university administrators exerted by Zionist politicians and pro-Zionist government officials to characterize any criticism of Israel as threatening to the “safety” of Jewish students and faculty. Such pressures have been well-documented in the cases of the Universities of Alberta and Calgary, and are exhibited in many of the submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’ investigation of “antisemitism” on Canadian campuses (May 2024). Notably, the committee’s December 2024 report recommended, among other measures, that universities adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism which encompasses anti-Zionism or criticism of the state of Israel.
In contrast, we see clearly how little the safety of “community members” from racialized Muslim backgrounds (and non-Zionist Jews) has mattered for university executives—how quickly their safety was sacrificed to achieve higher-ranked priorities. The repression of pro-Palestinian protest on university campuses is consistent with the denial of rights and the violence being inflicted upon Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank on a massive scale by Israel and its military and diplomatic allies.
It can have escaped no one’s notice that we live in times of rising authoritarianism. If Canadians accept the flimsy, speculative pretexts offered by university authorities to crush peaceful protest—if we do not subject them to rigorous Charter tests—we risk the further erosion of our political rights and freedoms. If these rights may be trampled underfoot on university campuses without legal challenge, where are they protected? Constitutional lawyers, don your armour.
Laurie E. Adkin is a professor emerita in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta.
References
1. By “executive” I refer to the president, the president’s executive team, or council, and the Board of Governors. While responsibility for the decisions falls ultimately on the shoulders of the university presidents, the reviews have been vague in identifying who authorized what and when. Some members of the executive team at UCalgary were away from the university when the decision to call in the police was taken; none, however, have subsequently resigned their positions. In the UAlberta case, we know that the Chair of the Board was closely involved in the decision-making about the PU4P, but we do not know if other governors on the Board were consulted; none have publicly expressed their agreement or disagreement with the action that was taken. This is typical of the lack of meaningful accountability of these board members to both internal constituencies and the broader public.↩
2. Its flaws notwithstanding, the UAlberta-commissioned Kent report provides very useful information in its excerpts from interviews with executive decision-makers and the appended (though redacted) “Rolling Update” on meetings, decisions, etc., maintained by the Crisis Management Team. Additional records were obtained by journalist Jeremy Appel through a FOIPP application to the UAlberta.↩
Remove Hamas and the other Resistance groups from the Home Office list of proscribed organisations
By David Miller | Al Mayadeen | March 14, 2025
The British government should de-proscribe all of the Palestinian and Lebanese Resistance groups currently listed on the anachronistic list maintained by the Home Office. The first and most obvious reason for this is that banning these groups does not in any way prevent or disrupt political violence in the UK. This sounds like a dramatic claim. So, let’s take a close look.
After a year and a half of genocide by the illegitimate Zionist entity, voices are beginning to be raised calling for the removal of Palestinian resistance groups from the government list of proscribed organisations. But what is the list and what offences are attached to it?
When I was detained by officers of SO15 or the Counter Terrorism Command (formerly the Special Branch) under Schedule 7 the other day, I was given a piece of paper with the legal basis of the detention which I was required to sign and was given a copy to keep. It states that the detention is to enable whether I appeared ‘to be a person who is or has been concerned in the commission of instigation of acts of terrorism.’
And yet, they asked me no questions about commissioning or instigating acts of “terrorism”. Not a single one.
Instead, they asked about extremism, the Western way of life, and asked me to characterise specific views on political violence. If the Trades Description Act applied to the Terrorism Act 2000 and to the activities of SO15, I would be making a complaint to the Heathrow Trading Standards Officer.
But the reason for this is that Schedule 7 is not really intended to disrupt actual terrorism, but to surveill and repress political views and political speech which is critical of UK foreign policy, including of course support for the Palestinians’ legitimate right to resist the Zionist occupation. Don’t believe me? Let’s look closely at the Home Office list of offences related to proscribed organisations.
As one can see from the offences below, none of them have anything to do with actual acts of violence. Let’s take each in turn.
- Obviously being a member of a proscribed group might have some relevance, but membership is not itself an act of terror. And certainly, professing to be a member of Hezbollah is not, in itself, an act of terror.
- Inviting support for a proscribed group is an offence. How does one ‘invite’ support for a ‘terrorist’ organisation? The language is of course similar to the ‘notice’ issued to UK broadcasters on 19 October 1988. Otherwise known as the Broadcasting Ban, this was an attempt to suppress support for the Irish Republican movement and in particular its political wing Sinn Fein, which throughout the period remained a legal political party with many elected councillors in the north of Ireland. It made, as I argued at the time, no appreciable difference to the Irish Republican Army, the wing of the movement engaged in armed struggle. But what does it mean to ‘invite’ support? It’s not altogether clear and it is pretty plain that this particular provision has been of little use to the British state, resulting, as it has, in precious few convictions. As a result, the government added a wider and more vague clause to the act via the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, to which we turn next.
- Express an ‘opinion’ or ‘belief’ that is supportive of a proscribed organisation. What does that mean? It obviously has the potential to be stretched quite far into opinions and beliefs that are shared by most people, even in the UK. Is saying that Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, the assassinated leader of Hezbollah, was widely respected and admired an opinion which is ‘supportive’ of a banned group? Notice the language is ‘will be’ encouraged not ‘is’ encouraged. So, at best this is a conjectural crime which does not require that anyone is actually encouraged, only that the hypothetical ‘reasonable person’ might think that. Again, nothing here that relates to involvement in planning any ‘act’ of violence.
- Arranging or managing a meeting is, manifestly, not an act of violence, whether or not it involves giving ‘support’ for a proscribed organisation and whether or not a representative of the organisation speaks, or whether the purpose of the address is to encourage support. In fact, the more we hear the voices of those (in proscribed organisations and legal ones alike) who are involved in resisting the menace of Zionism and genocide, the better it will be for the possibility of ending the genocide.
- Next is Clothing: It is an offence to ‘wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation’. Articles of clothing are also not in themselves acts of terror, no matter how they are displayed. Obviously, what they have in mind here is branding relating to specific organisations, such as a Hezbollah flag, a Qassam Brigades head band, or other perhaps less directly connected imagery or items. Obviously, given the attemtps of the Zionists and their craven allies in the British security state, there is a push to widen the parameters so they can scoop up more and more supporters of the Palestinians. Thus the case of the young women found guilty under these powers of sporting parachute patches (below).
Or, the case of the young man found guilty of supporting Hamas for wearing a green headband with the Shahada (the Muslim profession of faith) on it (first below). This is of course not a ‘Hamas headband’. Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, do have a specific headband with a gun on it! As can be seen, it is not at all similar (right below).
6. It is an offence to “publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances.” This is obviously intended to cover social media posts, which are manifestly not ‘acts’ or terrorism. This provision was inserted (12.4.2019) by Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
Overall, then, as we see these ‘proscription’ powers have nothing at all to do with interfering with material acts of political violence or armed struggle.
The proscription offences are not terrorism offences. It is an absurd nonsense, not to mention a colossal waste of resources, that SO15 are required to attempt to police thoughts, beliefs and speech as the vast majority of their activities at ports.
When the leading journalist Asa Winstanley was recently raided (but not arrested), he was told that it related to his alleged support for proscribed groups. A letter addressed to him ‘from the “Counter Terrorism Command” … indicates that the authorities are “aware of your profession” as a journalist but that “notwithstanding, police are investigating possible offenses” under sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act (2006). These provisions set out the purported offense of “encouragement of terrorism.”’
And yet, if you look at the passage at the beginning of this article about commission or instigation of acts of terror, the implication is that to be of interest one would have to be involved in setting up a branch of Qassam Brigades in North London, or a version of Hezbllah’s Radwan Force in Reading. There is nobody in the entire counter-terrorism apparatus who believes that that is what Asa, me, or anybody else, is doing.
And when you put it like that, it’s also manifestly the case that neither Hamas, Hezbollah, the PFLP-GC or Palestinian Islamic Jihad are planning to set up branches in the UK, or – indeed – to carry out attacks here. Given the UK’s role in directly participating in the genocide, that is generous of them, but it appears to be a fact.
But more than that, free speech about armed groups fighting an almost universally acknowledged genocide should not be criminalised and proscribed.
And the case for proscribing their welfare, health, education and other manifest functions of Hezbollah and Hamas is even weaker.
They should be de-proscribed now.
Kremlin comments on ECHR Odessa massacre ruling
RT | March 14, 2025
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling holding Ukraine accountable for the massacre in the city of Odessa in 2014 appears to be a “glimpse of common sense,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told TASS on Friday. However, a single ruling is not enough to draw broader conclusions, he added.
The ECHR found the Ukrainian authorities guilty of the deaths of the so-called anti-Maidan activists who burned to death after taking refuge in the Odessa trade union building, which was subsequently set on fire by radical nationalists. The court ruled on Thursday that Ukraine failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the violence, halt it once it began, or rescue those trapped in the building.
“A very belated decision, but it seems like a glimpse of common sense,” Peskov remarked. “To confirm this, we need to see other similar actions. Which, of course, we would like to witness.”
On May 2, 2014, clashes erupted in Odessa between Ukrainian nationalists, who supported the armed coup in Kiev that had occurred several weeks before, and those who opposed it. The pro-Maidan activists attacked a tent where local residents were gathering signatures for a referendum on the federalization of Ukraine and recognition of Russian as a state language.
Outnumbered by the far-right radicals, the anti-coup activists took refuge inside the city’s trade union building. However, the nationalists surrounded the building, lobbed Molotov cocktails at it and eventually set it on fire, resulting in 48 deaths and over 200 people injured.
More than a decade later, Kiev has neither identified nor prosecuted any of the perpetrators. Instead, it has shifted the blame to Moscow, alleging that the events in Odessa were “a pre-planned and well-financed operation” by the Russian security services. Moscow has repeatedly called for an investigation into the massacre, even advocating for a special tribunal to be convened.
Relatives of 25 victims, along with three survivors of the fire, filed complaints against Ukraine with the ECHR. The court ruled that the Ukrainian police had “had ignored the available intelligence and the relevant warning signs” and made no “meaningful attempt to prevent the clashes” that led to the fire. While the ECHR acknowledged that “propaganda from Russia had had its part” in tensions being escalated, it admitted that this did not absolve Kiev of responsibility for the massacre.
Infowars reporter mysteriously killed days after network reported on Mossad-Epstein links
Infowars lead reporter Jamie White (L) (Photo via social media)
Press TV – March 13, 2025
Infowars lead reporter Jamie White has been shot dead outside his Austin apartment, two days after the network aired a report on Mossad’s links to the Epstein sex trafficking ring.
White was found injured near his car late Sunday and later died after being taken to a local hospital.
The Austin police department has claimed that the killing was “likely a random attack.”
Authorities have not yet identified the perpetrator(s).
The murder has led many, including Infowars’ founder Alex Jones, to question if the journalist was the target in a politically-motivated assassination.
“What are the chances in a town of over two million people that an Infowars lead reporter gets butchered?” Jones said in an interview after the murder.
The killing of the Infowars reporter happened two days after the network ran an extensive expose on the links between the Israeli spy service Mossad, and the sex trafficking ring run by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
The show, which was hosted by Alex Jones and investigative journalist Ian Carrol, said that the sex trafficking network was a “honey trap” operation to gain blackmail on powerful individuals for the benefit of Israel.
The Epstein case is notorious for being linked to a slew of mysterious deaths.
In 2020, the home of Esther Salas, a judge investigating the case, was attacked by an assailant.
The attack left Salas’s son dead and her husband injured. The assailant was later found dead, with authorities claiming the death to be suicide.
In 2022, French modeling agent and Epstein associate Jean-Luc Brunel was found hanged in his prison cell while being investigated for the sex trafficking of minors.
Jeffrey Epstein himself also died under suspicious circumstances in his prison cell in 2019.
While the US government claims that his death was a suicide, many Americans believe the death to have been a murder to prevent the revelation of his connections with powerful people.
Yale suspends Iranian scholar after AI site said she supports a pro-Palestine group
Press TV – March 13, 2025
Yale Law School has suspended an Iranian scholar following accusations stemming from an Israeli AI-powered website article that highlights her advocacy for Palestine and Iran, as well as her outspoken criticism of Israeli genocide during the Gaza war.
Helyeh Doutaghi, who serves as the Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy (LPE) Project at Yale, in a public statement on Wednesday, denounced her suspension as a retaliatory action against her pro-Palestinian stance and a violation of her constitutional rights to free speech and academic freedom.
“AI is being weaponized to target students, faculty, and organizers who dare to speak out against genocide, systemic starvation, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians,” she warned, highlighting the broader implications of the misuse of artificial intelligence in academic and public discourse.
Doutaghi, an expert in international law who held the position of Associate Research Scholar at Yale Law School, was informed of an article published by an obscure AI-powered right-wing Zionist platform, Jewish Onliner, on March 3, which falsely labeled her a “terrorist.”
Doutaghi, who has been vocal about the implications of US military operations, imperialism and the US-Zionist genocide and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine, reported that the accusations from the article have led to online harassment and even death threats against her.
Less than 24 hours after the article’s release, Yale Law School administration placed Doutaghi on leave.
She criticized the administration for conducting an interrogation based on AI-generated allegations without due process or providing her with sufficient time to attend an interrogation.
Doutaghi also expressed concerns about Yale’s choice of attorney for her interrogation, David Ring from the firm Wiggin and Dana, whose public profile indicates a focus on services related to Israel.
She questioned his neutrality in a case involving a pro-Palestinian academic.
“The actions of YLS constitute a blatant act of retaliation against Palestinian solidarity,” Doutaghi remarked, asserting that the administration prioritized the approval of its Zionist donors over a fair investigation.
Doutaghi pointed out that Yale’s asset managers include firms linked to General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, which produce components for the F-35 fighter jets used by Israel in committing genocide, asserting that the move creates a conflict of interest that undermines academic integrity.
“This crackdown is a dangerous escalation in state repression, fostering an atmosphere of fear on campus,” said Doutaghi. “We are witnessing a new era of Zionist McCarthyism, where dissent is met with violence, and solidarity with Palestine is rendered a punishable offense.”
“Yale is bending the knee to Trump’s effort to suppress free speech, crush academic freedom, and establish a dictatorship,” Eric Lee, Doutaghi’s lawyer wrote on social media in light of her suspension.
Meanwhile, the US State Department is reportedly considering the use of AI to potentially revoke visas for international students accused of supporting Hamas, raising further concerns about the consequences of such technology on civil liberties.
On Saturday, Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate who helped lead last year’s solidarity protests in support of the Gaza Strip, was detained by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and said to be deported despite having a green card.
Following the detention of Khalil, US President Donald Trump declared it was “the first of many to come,” labeling Khalil a “radical foreign pro-Hamas student” and emphasizing that his administration would adopt a strict stance against any pro-Palestinian activities within American universities.
Featured Video
The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Jeffrey Epstein: A Jewish Individual?
The Occidental Observer | February 5, 2023
One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union between Intelligence and Organized Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 1 & 2) by Whitney Webb
“Far from being an anomaly, Epstein was one of several men who, over the past century, have engaged in sexual blackmail activities designed to obtain damaging information (i.e., “intelligence”) on powerful individuals with the goal of controlling their activities and securing their compliance.”[1]
Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Ghislaine Maxwell is locked away in prison, and the thought-makers of our world seem keen to let the more explosive parts of the scandal dissipate from the public consciousness. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, Epstein and Maxwell were little more than well-connected socialites who ran a sex-trafficking ring for the rich and the powerful, and the focus has shifted instead to the criminal and civil cases seeking to achieve redress for the victims of sexual abuse.
On occasion some newspaper articles will mention the hidden cameras littered across Epstein’s properties, others the reams of CDs and hard drives found within them during the FBI raids. Altogether missing from the Netflix documentaries (Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich [2020] and Ghislaine Maxwell: Filthy Rich [2022]) or the articles that spend their time narrowly focusing on the links between Epstein and Bill Gates, is the acknowledgement of the true nature of Epstein himself and the ultimate purpose of this sex-trafficking of minors — a sexual blackmail operation.
Not everyone is cowardly enough to let these controversial aspects lie untouched, as the newly released two-volume book One Nation Under Blackmail by independent reporter Whitney Webb seeks to blow wide open this media-enforced blackout. Utilizing primarily open-source information (that is, publicly accessible information such as books, newspapers articles and government reports),[2] Webb’s book delves into the life and times of Jeffrey Epstein and his deep ties to Jewish billionaires and Israeli intelligence. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Aletho News- Russia and China Are Expanding Their Cooperation to Counter US Efforts to Bully Iran and Cuba
- NATO plotting maritime blockade of Russia – Moscow
- Jeffrey Epstein’s sinister shadow over West Asia
- The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
- French FM under fire over ‘false’ claims about UN rapporteur
- Israel Wants ISIS-Linked Militias To Control Rafah Crossing — The New Order in Gaza
- ISIS never left Syria, it just changed uniforms
- Why ARE the US and Israel Obsessed With Eliminating Iran’s Ballistic Missiles?
- Kremlin comments on EU ‘myopia’ over dialogue with Russia
- Russia more adapted to contemporary military technology than NATO
- If Americans Knew
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- Why Is the World Silent When the Gaza Genocide Is Not Over?
- In Gaza: 8,000 bodies under rubble, 3,000 missing – Not a ceasefire Day 126
- AZAPAC, the new PAC opposing Israeli domination of U.S policies
- Haim Saban: Billionaire for Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
Aletho News 