WHO Instructs Governments to Track Online Anti-Vaccine Messaging in Real Time with AI: Journal ‘Vaccines’
Believe in vaccines or be targeted
By Jon Fleetwood | December 29, 2025
The World Health Organization (WHO) has demanded that governments surveil online information that questions the legitimacy of influenza vaccines and that they launch “countermeasures” against those who question the WHO’s vaccine dogma, in a November Vaccines journal publication.
The WHO’s largest funders are the U.S. government (taxpayers) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
In the November publication, the WHO representatives do not argue for their beliefs in vaccines.
They do not attempt to interact with arguments against vaccines.
Instead, they call for governments to use artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor online opposition to injectable pharmaceuticals, and to develop ways to combat such opposition.
There is no persuasion, only doctrine.
The WHO paper reads:
“Vaccine effectiveness is contingent on public acceptance, making risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) an integral component of preparedness. The research agenda calls for the design of tailored communication strategies that address local sociocultural contexts, linguistic diversity, and trust dynamics.”
“Digital epidemiology tools, such as AI-driven infodemic monitoring systems like VaccineLies and CoVaxLies, offer real-time insight into misinformation trends, enabling proactive countermeasures.”
The WHO starts from the assumption that all vaccine skepticism is inherently false, pushing surveillance tools to track and catalog online dissent from those rejecting that creed.
The goal is not finding middle ground or even fostering dialogue.
It’s increasing vaccinations.
“The engagement of high-exposure occupational groups as trusted messengers is recommended to improve uptake.”
To accomplish this, governments “should” align “all” their messaging with the WHO’s denomination of vaccine faith.
“All messaging should align with WHO’s six communication principles, ensuring information is Accessible, Actionable, Credible, Relevant, Timely, and Understandable, to strengthen public trust in vaccination programmes.”
The WHO’s faith system requires not only that its own followers but also non-followers inject themselves with drugs linked to injuries, diseases, hospitalizations, and deaths.
If your posts online oppose that faith system, they are targeted and labeled as “misinformation.”
You require “behavioural intervention.”
You must be “counter[ed].”
“Beyond monitoring misinformation, participatory communication models that involve local leaders, healthcare workers, and veterinarians have shown measurable improvements in vaccine uptake and trust. Evidence-based behavioural interventions can complement these approaches to counter misinformation.”
The WHO is outlining an Orwellian control system where dissent is pathologized, belief is enforced by surveillance, and governments are instructed to algorithmically police thought in service of pharmaceutical compliance.
Ireland’s Simon Harris to Push EU-Wide Ban on Social Media Anonymity
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 29, 2025
Ireland’s next term leading the European Union will be used to promote a new agenda: an effort to end online anonymity and make verified identity the standard across social media platforms.
Tánaiste Simon Harris said the government plans to use Ireland’s presidency to push for EU-wide rules that would require users to confirm their identities before posting or interacting online.
Speaking to Extra.ie, Harris described the plan as part of a broader attempt to defend what he called “democracy” from anonymous abuse and digital manipulation.
He said the initiative will coincide with another policy being developed by Media Minister Patrick O’Donovan, aimed at preventing children from accessing social media.
O’Donovan’s proposal, modeled on Australian restrictions, is expected to be introduced while Ireland holds the EU presidency next year.
Both ideas would involve rewriting parts of the EU’s Digital Services Act, which already governs how online platforms operate within the bloc.
Expanding it to require verified identities would mark a major shift toward government involvement in online identity systems, a move that many privacy advocates believe could expose citizens to new forms of monitoring and limit open speech.
Harris said his motivation comes from concerns about the health of public life, not personal grievance.
Harris said he believes Ireland will find allies across Europe for the initiative.
He pointed to recent statements from French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who he said have shown interest in following Australia’s lead. “If you look at the comments of Emmanuel Macron… of Keir Starmer… recently, in terms of being open to considering what Australia have done… You know this is a global conversation Ireland will and should be a part of,” he said.
Technology companies based in Ireland, many of which already face scrutiny under existing EU rules, are likely to resist further regulation.
The United States government has also expressed growing hostility toward European efforts to regulate speech on its major tech firms, recently imposing visa bans on several EU officials connected to such laws.
Despite this, Harris said Ireland does not want confrontation. “This is a conversation we want to have now. We don’t want to have it in an adversarial way. Companies require certainty too, right?” he said, emphasizing that Ireland remains committed to being a reliable home for international tech firms.
He also spoke in support of O’Donovan’s age-verification proposal, comparing it to other legal age limits already enforced in Ireland. “We have a digital age of consent in Ireland, which is 16, but it’s simply not being enforced,” he said.
From a civil liberties standpoint, mandatory identity checks could fundamentally alter the online world.
Requiring proof of identity to speak publicly risks silencing individuals who rely on anonymity for safety, including whistleblowers, activists, and those living under political pressure.
Once created, systems of digital identity are rarely dismantled and can easily be adapted to track or restrict speech.
Harris said that voluntary cooperation by technology companies could make legislation unnecessary. “These companies are technology companies. They have the ability to do more, without the need for laws,” he said, suggesting platforms could use their own tools to manage bots, algorithms, and age verification.
Italy arrests Palestinian activist amid crackdown on anti-Israel voices

Palestinian activist Mohammed Hannoun
Press TV – December 28, 2025
Italian authorities have detained prominent Palestinian activist Mohammed Hannoun as European countries mount a crackdown on voices exposing Israel’s genocidal crimes against the oppressed nation.
Hannoun, president of the Palestinian Association in Italy, was arrested along with eight other people on Saturday for allegedly financing the Palestinian Hamas resistance group through charities.
In a statement, prosecutors claimed that the activist is the “head of the Italian cell of the Hamas organization.”
They also alleged that the suspects had sent about 7 million euros ($8.2 million) to “associations … owned, controlled, or linked to Hamas.”
However, Hannoun’s lawyer Fabio Sommovigo said that the funds were collected peacefully for humanitarian purposes, adding that the case was based on the Israeli authorities’ interpretation of money movements.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has faced backlash for her pro-Israel stance during the regime’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, expressed her “appreciation and satisfaction” for the arrest operation.
Born in Jordan in 1962, Hannoun has been residing in the Italian port city of Genoa for many years.
He is an architect by profession and has organized and taken part in public demonstrations, solidarity initiatives, and awareness campaigns in support of the Palestinian cause.
He had previously described Hamas as a legitimate political actor, saying, “I am simply a Palestinian who has been engaged for decades in the struggle for the rights of his people. Hamas received more than 70 percent of the vote in Gaza and the West Bank, so it is a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. And I am a sympathizer of Hamas, just as I am of every faction that fights for my rights.”
The arrests come at a time when certain European countries have stepped up efforts to silence pro-Palestinian activists and groups through judicial proceedings, forced dissolutions, and account freezes.
The same European states are complicit in Israel’s war crimes as they maintain their economic and military ties with the criminal regime, which has killed 71,266 Palestinians, mostly women and children, in Gaza since October 7, 2023.
NSW Premier Admits New “Security” Bill Restricts Civil Liberties, Promises More “Hate Speech” Laws Ahead
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 27, 2025
Lawmakers in New South Wales wrapped up the year by rushing through security legislation that broadens police powers and imposes new limits on protest activity and expression.
Passed in an extraordinary sitting of Parliament just before Christmas, the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 represents one of the most far-reaching state security expansions in recent years.
Under the new law, the display of a symbol belonging to a “prohibited terrorist organization” can now lead to a prison term of up to two years.
Police officers are also granted authority to order individuals to remove face coverings if they are attending a demonstration or public event and the officer “reasonably suspects” they may commit an offense.
The legislation also permits police to halt public gatherings in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.
Although the bill is not framed as a censorship measure, it introduces powers that could intersect with the expanding use of surveillance technologies.
By compelling people to show their faces during political demonstrations, the law effectively weakens the ability of citizens to shield themselves from biometric tracking at a time when facial recognition systems are increasingly used by both law enforcement and private entities.
Premier Chris Minns has openly acknowledged that the law curtails individual freedoms. “These are extraordinary measures, I acknowledge that. I know that not all Australians that live in NSW support these changes, but we have decided it’s the best way of ensuring we do everything possible to keep the people of NSW safe,” he said following the bill’s passage.
Minns further conceded that the process was accelerated, crediting bipartisan cooperation for allowing the legislation to pass so quickly. “I know that that happened in a short space of time. I know that the negotiations and the talks had to happen over a short space of time, but we appreciate the goodwill in which we were able to get much-needed reform in New South Wales through the Parliament,” he stated.
He justified the timing by saying, “We couldn’t wait, this was urgent.”
When pressed about why the measures were bundled into a single omnibus bill, Minns admitted that time was the deciding factor. “If it had been cut up into its component parts, we would have been here way past Christmas… maybe people who oppose elements of those changes would have loved that, because it would have meant that the passage of the bills would have been stalled.”
The Premier did not shy away from admitting that rights were being limited in the process. “I accept, I guess, the implicit criticism that this does restrict rights, whether it’s for protests or guns,” he said. “But in these circumstances, we’ve got a higher obligation to the public… our number one obligation is to keep the public safe.”
Minns also signaled that more legislation is on the horizon, confirming that the government intends to introduce new “hate speech” laws in the coming months. “I want to make it clear that this isn’t the end of change… we’re currently looking at other areas of the law that are urgently required to confront hate speech, confront Islamist terrorism in our community,” he said. “Hate speech leads to hateful actions… and we’re prepared to take action and steps to keep the community safe.”
While the Premier frames the agenda as necessary to safeguard citizens, the process reflects a deeper shift toward governance by emergency.
Parliament’s decision to fast-track legal powers during a holiday recess, without full debate or public review, raises serious questions about transparency and proportionality.
The rapid normalization of police discretion over identity and assembly carries lasting implications for privacy and dissent.
As soon as governments assert the right to define and control “hate speech” or to compel identification at protests, the boundaries of lawful expression narrow quickly. A response to terrorism may end up reshaping the basic relationship between the individual and the state.
More: Victoria Moves to Force Online Platforms to ID Users and Expand State Powers to Curb “Hate Speech”
US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 27, 2025
American Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers has sharply criticized British and European speech regulators for attempting to extend their laws to US-based platforms, calling it a direct challenge to the First Amendment.
Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.
She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.
Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”
Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.
The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.
That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.
She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are… trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.
On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.
“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.
Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.
Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.
She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage… about American political controversies… and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”
Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.
Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.
“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”
Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.
Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.
More: EU Launches New Push For Digital ID Age Checks and Big Tech Probe Under Digital Services Act
What Is Actually Behind Israel’s Recognition Of Somaliland?

The Dissident | December 27, 2025
Recently, Israel became the first country to recognize Somaliland, a breakaway region of Somalia that declared independence in 1991 but until now has not been officially recognized by any UN member state.
But what is Israel’s real motive behind this move?
One motive appears to be the fact that Israel has taken part in negotiations with Somaliland to use the region as a place to relocate Palestinians ethnically cleansed from Gaza by Israel.
The Israeli newspaper Ynet, writing about Israel’s Recognition Of Somaliland, noted that, “The territory has recently been mentioned as a possible destination for Gazans, with officials there saying they would be willing to absorb ‘one million Gazans,’ though no formal agreement has been announced.”
Israeli journalist Amit Segal wrote, “Israel announced today its official recognition of Somaliland as an independent, sovereign state, in a joint declaration signed by the leaders and in the spirit of the Abraham Accords,” and went on to boast that “Somaliland was supposed to — and may still — absorb Gazans.”
A report from the Financial Times from March of this year reported that during a meeting with U.S. officials and leaders of Somaliland, “Washington had raised the possibility of relocating refugees from the US and Gaza”, adding that, “Israel was ‘in conversations’ with countries around the world, including in Africa, about taking in Gazans”.
An August report from the Times of Israel wrote that, “Israel is in talks with five countries — Indonesia, Somaliland, Uganda, South Sudan and Libya — about the potential resettlement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip” and added, “‘Some of the countries are showing greater openness than before to accepting voluntary immigration from the Gaza Strip,’ a diplomatic source tells the outlet, naming Indonesia and Somaliland in particular.”
It noted that, “Somaliland is a breakaway region of Somalia that is reportedly hoping to secure international recognition through the deal.”
Previously, the Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, reported that Somaliland Foreign Minister, Abdirahman Dahir Adan, “does not rule out absorbing Gazan residents” but said that, “the most important thing for us is to receive recognition”, signalling that Somaliland would agree to Israel’s ethnic cleansing plan in exchange for recognition Of Somaliland.
Journalist Kit Klarenberg noted that forcibly sending Palestinians from Gaza into Somaliland would amount to forcing them “in yet another open air concentration camp”, noting that, “In late 2022, mass protests broke out in the contested Somalian city of Las Anod. Somaliland security forces crushed the upheaval using lethal force, leaving dozens dead” and adding that, “Somaliland’s appeal to Israel and its Western puppet masters as a dumping ground for Gazans is obvious. A well-armed repressive domestic security apparatus stands ever-ready to brutally quell any and all local resistance”.
Furthermore, Israel’s recognition of Somaliland will be a strategic boost to Israel’s war against Yemen’s Ansar Allah, or the Houthis, the resistance militia, which had put a naval blockade on Israeli ships in the Red Sea, in an attempt to force Israel to end the genocide in Gaza.
Mark Dubowitz, an official with the Neo-con think tank “Foundation for Defense of Democracies,” boasted that Israel’s recognition of Somaliland will aid their war on Yemen, writing, “For those mocking why Israel would engage Somaliland: look at the map. Somaliland sits on the Gulf of Aden, next to the Bab el-Mandeb—a chokepoint for global trade and energy. Across the water are Iran-backed Houthis firing on Israel and shipping. Somaliland offers stability, ports, intelligence access, and a non-Iranian platform on the Red Sea. Similar reason why the U.S. has a military base in Djibouti.”
The Israeli newspaper Ynet reported that, Israel, “has strong strategic interest in Somaliland due to its long coastline and location in the Horn of Africa, close to Yemen” adding that, “One reason Israel has taken a keen interest in Somaliland is its proximity to areas controlled by Yemen’s Houthi rebels … Strengthening ties with Somaliland is viewed in Israel as a potential force multiplier against the Houthis”.
The outlet wrote that, “Somaliland lies near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a key global shipping lane. Amid clashes between Israel and the Houthis following the war in Gaza, and against the backdrop of a US operation against the Houthis this year, waters near Yemen have become a danger zone for commercial vessels … Somaliland’s Port of Berbera, about 250 kilometers south of Yemen, is considered strategically significant in this context”.
Another article in Ynet reported that, “Israeli intelligence officials say the Mossad has been active in Somaliland for years, laying the groundwork for the recognition through long-standing, discreet relationships with senior figures there. Mossad chiefs have maintained personal ties with Somaliland officials, and Israeli officials hope the agreement will encourage additional countries to pursue strategic relations with Israel as part of a broader regional alignment” because, “One key factor driving Israel’s interest is Somaliland’s proximity to areas controlled by the Houthis in Yemen” adding that, “Strengthening ties with Somaliland is seen in Israel as a strategic force multiplier against the Houthis.”
Reports in Israeli media show that Israel’s real motive behind recognition of Somaliland is to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in Gaza, and to have a strategic boost to its war against the Houthis, one of the only forces left willing to fight in solidarity with Palestinians.
Israeli forces arrest writer and political researcher Sari Orabi

MEMO | December 26, 2025
Israeli occupation forces arrested the writer and political researcher Sari Orabi after raiding his home at dawn on Thursday in the town of Rafat, north of occupied Jerusalem, according to local media sources.
The sources said Israeli forces carried out wide arrest raids early on Thursday across several areas of the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem. The raids targeted a number of young men and former prisoners after their homes were stormed, searched and damaged.
Sari Orabi is a writer and researcher specialising in politics and Islamic thought. His articles have been published in several newspapers, magazines, websites and research centres. He also regularly appears as a commentator on cultural, intellectual and political issues on a number of television channels.
In addition to Orabi, Israeli forces arrested Ibrahim Hourani after raiding his home in the city of Qalqilya. In the town of Aroura, north of Ramallah, they arrested Nasser Mufaraj and his son Amr, and re-arrested former prisoner Tayseer Khusaib following home raids.
The Palestinian Prisoners’ Media Office said the continued arrest campaigns show that Israeli policy targets academics, writers, former prisoners and young people alike, rather than a specific group. It said this reflects a clear attempt to suppress public awareness and social influence within Palestinian society.
The architecture of extermination: Why the Gaza genocide is premeditated and repeatable
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | December 26, 2025
Suppose we accept the fiction that none of us expected Israel to launch a full-scale genocide in Gaza—a premeditated campaign to erase the Strip and exterminate a significant portion of its inhabitants. Let us pretend that nearly eighty years of relentless massacres were not a prelude to this moment, and that Israel had never before sought the physical destruction of the Palestinian people as outlined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.
If we go so far as to accept the sterile, ahistoric claim that the Nakba of 1948 was “merely” ethnic cleansing rather than genocide—ignoring the mass graves and the forced erasure of a civilisation—we are still left with a terrifying reality. Having witnessed the unmasked extermination that began on 7 October 2023, who can dare to argue that its perpetrators lack the intent to repeat it?
The question itself is an act of charity, as it assumes the genocide has actually stopped. In reality, the carnage has merely shifted tactics. Since the implementation of the fragile ceasefire on 10 October, Israel has killed over 400 Palestinians and wounded hundreds more. Others have perished in the frozen mud of their tents. They include infants like eight-month-old Fahar Abu Jazar, who, like others, froze to death. These are not mere tragedies; they are the inevitable results of a calculated Israeli policy of destruction targeting the most vulnerable.
During this two-year campaign of extermination, more than 20,000 Palestinian children were murdered, accounting for a staggering 30 per cent of the total victims. This blood-soaked tally ignores the thousands of souls entrapped beneath the concrete wasteland of Gaza, and those currently being consumed by the silent killers of famine and engineered epidemics.
The horrifying statistics aside, we bear witness to the final agonies of a people. We have watched their extermination in real-time, broadcast to every handheld screen on earth. No one can claim ignorance; no one can claim innocence. Even now, we watch as 1.3 million Palestinians endure a precarious existence in tents ravaged by winter floods. We share the screams of mothers, the hollowed-out faces of broken fathers, and the haunted stares of children, and yet, the world’s political and moral institutions remain paralyzed.
If Israel resumes the full, unrestrained intensity of this genocide, will we stop it? I fear the answer is no, because the world refuses to dismantle the circumstances that permitted this slaughter in the first place. Israeli officials never bothered to hide their intent. The systematic dehumanisation of Palestinians was a primary export of Israeli media, even as Western corporate outlets worked tirelessly to sanitise this criminal discourse.
The record of intent is undeniable. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir openly championed the “encouragement of migration” and demanded that “not an ounce of humanitarian aid” reach Gaza. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich argued that the starvation of two million people could be “just and moral” in the pursuit of military aims. From the halls of the Knesset to the pop charts, the refrain was the same: “erase Gaza,” “leave no one there.” When military leaders refer to an entire population as “human animals,” they are not using metaphors; they are issuing a license for extermination.
This was preceded by the hermetic siege — a decades-long experiment in human misery that began in 2006. Despite every Palestinian plea for the world to break this death grip, the blockade was allowed to persist. This was followed by successive wars targeting a besieged, impoverished population under the banner of ‘security,’ always shielded by the Western mantra of Israel’s ‘right to defend itself.’
In the dominant Western narrative, the Palestinian is the eternal aggressor. They are the occupied, the besieged, the dispossessed, and the stateless; yet they are expected to die quietly in the world’s ‘largest open-air prison‘. Whether they utilised armed resistance, threw rocks at tanks, or marched unarmed toward snipers, they were branded ‘terrorists’ and ‘militants’ whose very existence was framed as a threat to their occupier.
Years before the first bomb of this genocide fell, the United Nations declared Gaza “uninhabitable.” Its water was a toxin, its land a graveyard, and its people were dying of curable diseases. Yet, aside from the typical ritual of humanitarian reports, the international community did nothing to offer a political horizon, a just peace.
This criminal neglect provided the vacuum for the events of 7 October, allowing Israel to weaponize its victimhood to execute a genocide of sadistic proportions. Former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant explicitly stripped Palestinians of their humanity, launching a collective slaughter directed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The stage is being set for the next phase of extermination. The siege is now absolute, the violence more concentrated, and the dehumanisation of Palestinians more widespread than ever. As the international media drifts toward other distractions, Israel’s image is being rehabilitated as if the genocide never happened.
Tragically, the conditions that fueled the first wave of genocide are being meticulously reconstructed. Indeed, another Israeli genocide is not a distant threat; it is an encroaching reality that will be finalised unless it is stopped.
The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was a legal vow to “liberate mankind from such an odious scourge.” If those words possess a shred of integrity, the world must act now to abort the next phase of extermination. This requires absolute accountability and a political process that finally severs the grip of Israeli colonialism and violence. The clock is ticking, and our collective voice—or our silence—will make the difference.
German journalist says she was sexually assaulted in Israeli custody
ILKA | December 26, 2025
A German journalist detained by Israeli forces following the interception of a Gaza-bound aid vessel has accused Israeli prison authorities of sexually assaulting her while in custody, triggering renewed outrage over Israel’s treatment of international activists and detainees.
Anna Liedtke, who was aboard the humanitarian ship Conscience as part of the Freedom Flotilla initiative, said she was raped during a strip search while being transferred between Israeli detention facilities. The flotilla was attempting to challenge Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, which human rights groups have long described as illegal and collectively punitive.
Liedtke was held for five days after Israeli forces seized the vessel in late 2025. In her first public testimony, she said the alleged assault did not occur in isolation but was part of repeated abuses during multiple prison transfers.
“We were transferred from one prison to another, and during the strip searches I was raped,” Liedtke said, describing the experience as deeply traumatic and humiliating.
Her account has sparked condemnation from prisoner rights organisations and human rights advocates, who say the allegations fit a long-established pattern of abuse, sexual violence, and mistreatment within Israel’s detention system. Advocacy groups argue that such practices have been systematically used to intimidate, degrade, and silence Palestinians and international solidarity activists alike.
Rights organisations stressed that while Palestinians have for years reported sexual violence, invasive searches, and torture in Israeli prisons, cases involving foreign nationals underscore that Israel’s abusive detention practices extend beyond occupied populations to anyone who challenges its policies.
“The testimony of Anna Liedtke reinforces what Palestinian prisoners, especially women, have been saying for decades,” one rights advocate said. “Israeli detention facilities operate with near-total impunity.”
Calls are now growing for an independent international investigation into the allegations, with activists urging the United Nations and international human rights bodies to intervene. They argue that Israel’s internal investigative mechanisms lack credibility and routinely fail to hold perpetrators accountable.
The Freedom Flotilla coalition said the assault allegation highlights the risks faced by activists attempting to break the siege on Gaza and accused Israel of using violence and sexual abuse as tools of repression. The coalition renewed its demand for an end to the blockade, which has devastated Gaza’s civilian population for more than a decade.
Human rights groups say the case exposes the broader reality of Israel’s detention regime, where activists, journalists, and Palestinians are subjected to violence with little oversight. They warn that without sustained international pressure, such abuses will continue unchecked, further eroding international law and basic human dignity.
How reporting facts can now land you in jail for 14 years as a terrorist
By Jonathan Cook – December 22, 2025
Starmer’s government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can now outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation – and thereby make it impossible to defend it.
The moment the British government began proscribing political movements as terrorist organisations, rather than just militant groups, it was inevitable that saying factual things, making truthful statements, would become a crime.
And lo behold, here we are.
The Terrorism Act 2000 has a series of provisions that make it difficult to voice or show any kind of support for an organisation proscribed under the legislation, whether it is writing an article or wearing a T-shirt.
Recent attention has focused on Section 13, which is being used to hound thousands of mostly elderly people who have held signs saying: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” They now face a terrorism conviction and up to six months in jail.
But an amendment introduced in 2019 to Section 12 of the Act has been largely overlooked, even though it is even more repressive. It makes it a terrorism offence for a person to express “an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation” and in doing so be “reckless” about whether anyone else might be “encouraged to support” the organisation.
It is hard to believe this clause was not inserted specifically to target the watchdog professions: journalists, human rights groups and lawyers. They now face up to 14 years in jail for contravening this provision.
When it was introduced, six years ago, Section 12 made it impossible to write or speak in ways that might encourage support for groups whose central aim was using violence against people to achieve their aims.
The law effectively required journalists and others to adopt a blanket condemnatory approach to proscribed militant groups. That had its own drawbacks. It made it difficult, and possibly a terrorist offence, to discuss or analyse these organisations and their goals in relation to international law, which, for example, allows armed resistance – violence – against an occupying army.
But these problems have grown exponentially since the Conservatives proscribed Hamas’ political wing in 2021 and the government of Keir Starmer proscribed Palestine Action in 2025, the first time in British history a direction-action group targeting property had been declared a terrorist group.
Now journalists, human rights activists and lawyers face a legal minefield every time they try to talk about the Gaza genocide, the trials of people accused of belonging to Palestine Action, or the hunger strikes of those on remand over attacks on weapons factories supplying killer drones to Israel.
Why? Because saying truthful things about any of these matters – if they could lead a reader or listener to take a more favourable view of Palestine Action or the political wing of Hamas – are now a terrorist offence. Any journalist, human rights activist or lawyer making factual observations risks 14 years behind bars.
Few seem to have understood quite what impact this is having on public coverage of these major issues.
A month and a half into the hunger strike by eight members of Palestine Action – the point at which people are likely to start dying – the BBC News at Ten finally broke its silence on the matter. That was despite the hunger strike being the largest in UK history in nearly half a century.
There are clear political reasons why the BBC had avoided this topic for so long. It prefers not to deal with matters that directly confront the legitimacy of the government, which funds it. The BBC is effectively the British state broadcaster.
But in a naturally spineless organisation like the BBC, the legal consequences have clearly weighed heavily too. In a recent short segment on the hunger strike, BBC correspondent Dominic Casciani carefully hedged his words and admitted to facing legal difficulties reporting on the strike.
In these circumstances, news organisations make one of two choices. They simply ignore factual things because it is legally too dangerous to speak truthfully about them. Or they lie about factual things because it is legally safe – and politically opportune – to speak untruthfully about them.
The so-called “liberal” parts of the media, including the BBC, tend to opt for the former; the red-tops usually opt for the latter.
The government itself is taking full advantage of this lacuna in reporting, injecting its own self-serving deceptions into the coverage, knowing that there will be – can be – no meaningful pushback.
Take just one example. The government has proscribed Palestine Action on the grounds that it is a terrorist organisation. It has justified its decision by implying, without producing a shred of evidence, that the group is funded by Iran, and that its real agenda is not just criminal damage against arms factories but against individuals.
Any effort to counter this government disinformation, by definition, violates Section 12 of the Terrorism Act and risks 14 years’ imprisonment.
Were I to conduct an investigation, for example, definitively showing that Palestine Action was not funded by Iran – proving that the government was lying – it would be a terror offence to publish that truthful information. Why? Because it would almost certainly “encourage support” for Palestine Action. There is no fact or truth exemption in the legislation.
Similarly, the government has suggested that the current “Filton Trial” – which includes discussions of events in which a police officer was injured during a struggle over the sledgehammers being used to destroy the Elbit factory’s weapons-producing machinery – demonstrates that Palestine Action was not just targeting property but individuals too.
Were I to try to make the case that the alleged actions of one individual – only one person is charged with assault – prove nothing about the aims of the organisation as a whole, I would be risking a terrorism conviction and 14 years’ imprisonment. Which is one, very strong reason not to make such an argument.
But in the absence of such arguments, the reality is that social media is awash with posts from people echoing outrageous official disinformation. This spreads unchallenged because to challenge it is now cast as a terrorism offence.
In truth, since proscription, any statements about the political aims of a deeply political organisation like Palestine Action occupy a grey area of the law.
Is it a terrorism offence to point out the fact, as I have done above, that Palestine Action targeted Elbit factories that send killer drones to Israel for use in Gaza. In doing so, may I have “recklessly” encouraged you to support Palestine Action?
Can I express any kind of positive view about the hunger strikers or their actions without violating the law?
The truth is that the law’s greyness is its very point. It maximises the chilling effect on those who are supposed to serve as the public’s watchdogs on power: journalists, human rights groups, lawyers.
It allows the government – through compliant police forces – to selectively pick off those dissenting individuals it doesn’t like, those without institutional backing, to make examples of them. This is not conjecture. It is already happening.
The abuse of the Terrorism Act discourages research, analysis and critical thinking. It forces all journalists, human rights activists and lawyers to become lapdogs of the government. It creates a void into which the government can spin events to its own advantage, in which it can avoid accountability and in which it can punish those who dissent. It is the very antithesis of democratic behaviour.
This ought to appall anyone who cares about the truth, about public debate, about scrutiny. Because they have all been thrown out of the window.
And in proscribing Palestine Action, the government has set the most dangerous of precedents: it can outlaw any political group it chooses as a terrorist organisation and thereby make it impossible to defend that group.
That is what authoritarian governments do. That is exactly where Britain is now.
The vindication (and brutal punishment) of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 23, 2025
Alongside the powers that be everywhere, Google’s still anonymous AI is also a pious believer in the virtues of free expression. It proclaims boldly and for all the right reasons that free speech is vital to democracy, in which it also claims to believe. It reminds us also, which is good to know, that freedom of expression promotes an informed citizenry and self-governance and ensures government accountability. Furthermore, that open dialogue and debate facilitate the “marketplace of ideas,” which is a vital condition for social progress and provides society with a much-needed “safety valve.” And finally, that the unhindered right to express one’s thoughts, beliefs, and values without fear is a fundamental aspect of human dignity and self-fulfilment. Amen, amen, amen.
In theory, all would heartily salute those noble sentiments. And that includes even some of their most ruthless violators, such as the German government.
For over a year after kidnapping him abroad, the German government kept prominent German lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich in prison on contrived charges and under extraordinarily harsh and inhuman conditions, which were seemingly designed just to torment him. In Germany, for Dr. Fuellmich at least, the right to express one’s thoughts with dignity (never mind self-fulfilment) in the manner so movingly preached by Google’s AI avatar went out the window many moons ago.
How many are there who still remember who Dr. Fuellmich is and what he stands for, let alone are aware of his current plight?
For those who do not, a brief note is in order. Shortly after the sudden appearance of the Covid affair in 2019, Dr. Fuellmich, a prominent trial attorney from Gottingen, gained public attention by raising sensible questions about the nature and origin of the commotion which was becoming global in scope. Identical questions were on the minds of many, but few were capable of articulating them in legal terms as effectively as he was. Initially, his questions were formulated rather timidly, barely overstepping the unspoken bounds of permissible inquiry. There was nigh a suggestion of any “conspiracy theory” or frontal challenge to the integrity of the system that in a matter of weeks had improvised, for purposes then still unknown, a global health emergency which was the pretext for unprecedentedly comprehensive social disruptions and the imposition of hitherto inconceivable restrictions on elementary human liberties.
As prominent professionals in the medical and other fields began also to sound the alarm and to raise questions from their respective areas of expertise, it became obvious to those who followed Reiner Fuellmich’s public pronouncements that both the direction and tone of the Covid inquiry he and his associates were pursuing were beginning to change. The issues he was now beginning to raise were no longer merely technical. Increasingly, as he dug deeper he was calling into question the bona fides of the political, media, and pharmaceutical intimidation machine that was invoking a supposed pandemic to implement a global lock-down regime, with compulsory mass injection of untested “therapeutic” substances.
Dr. Fuellmich’s basic questions about the “pandemic” are well worth recapitulating:
- “One: is there a corona pandemic, or is there only a PCR test pandemic, specifically, does a positive PCR test result mean that the person tested is infected with COVID-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing, in connection with the COVID-19 infection;
- “Two, do the so-called anti-corona measures, such as the lockdowns, facemasks, social distancing, and quarantine regulations serve to protect the world’s population from corona, or do they serve only to make people panic, so they believe, without asking any questions, that their lives are in danger, so that in the end, the pharmaceutical and technology companies can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints; and
- “Three, is it true that the German government was extensively lobbied, more so than any other government, by the chief protagonists of the so-called corona pandemic? Germany is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world, for its strict, and therefore, successful adherence to the corona measures.”
When, compelling as they evidently were, those interrogatories remained ignored in the public arena (whilst Dr. Fuellmich himself was being ridiculed and vilified just for asking) there began a perceptible shift in the scope and focus of his inquiry. His razor sharp legal mind was activated in the highest degree. The Establishment’s stonewalling on mostly softball issues gradually led him to undertake an unsparing in-depth scrutiny of the systemic background of the global Covid affair, fully intending to go to the root of it and leaving no stone unturned. Dr. Fuellmich threw the gauntlet when he announced that he was assembling evidence of crimes against humanity on a massive scale and of sufficient weight to convene a Medical Nuremberg II, with parallel criminal and class action proceedings that he intended to initiate in the judicial system of the United States and also before the European Court of Human Rights.
Dr. Fuellmich had stepped on some very sensitive and hostile toes. Clearly no such lunacy as he was contemplating could possibly be allowed. Plans were laid immediately to derail him by means of one of those shabby, low life operations in which secret services excel. Informants were planted in the target’s immediate circle to snitch on him and under false witness to furnish compromising evidence. A secret indictment (lettre de cachet, as this practice was known under the ancien regime in France and which recently was revived by the Hague Tribunal) for a purported money laundering scheme was duly prepared and German authorities waited for the convenient opportunity to catch their unsuspecting prey. That opportunity presented itself two years ago when Dr. Fuellmich, as a German citizen, appeared on the premises of the German consulate in Mexico (technically German territory, of course) to solicit a routine consular service. There, he was apprehended and promptly packed off to Germany to be disposed of as the German authorities saw fit. The only saving grace is that he was not snuffed and chopped up like the dissident journalist at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
Following an unprecedented, almost two-year, pre-trial incarceration under medieval conditions that was seemingly devised especially for him (the old “flight risk” ruse was cited as the official rationale for this harsh measure) in April 2025 Dr. Fuellmich was finally sentenced to three years and nine months in prison on the bogus charges filed against him. On the surface, everything appears neat and proper. Technically, he was condemned for a crime of moral turpitude. His real “offence” against the vindictive globalist Establishment, the irrefutable public exposure of its totalitarian and population-reduction agenda and its corrupt liaison with the nefarious pharmacological mafia and compulsory promotion of its lethal products, was not even alluded to in the course of those proceedings. Yet, while Dr. Fuellmich is rotting in prison, every one of the principal claims for which he actually was imprisoned is now being scientifically corroborated.
The so-called “covid vaccines” are now known to be associated with heart damage, exactly as Dr. Fuellmich and numerous other researchers insistently warned during the “pandemic” (also here). As predicted by Dr. Fuellmich and his research team, a surge of life threatening blood clots has been correlated with the mass injection of untested “vaccines.” There has also been a marked acceleration of deadly cancer conditions. As further evidence of the fraudulence of the “pandemic emergency,” a peer reviewed study has demonstrated that 86% of allegedly PCR-positive “Covid cases” were not even real infections. That had originally been stated by Dr. Fuellmich, to widespread derision at the time. It is a fact that dismantles the scientific foundation used to justify lockdowns, social distancing, and vaccine mandates. And perhaps the most damning fact of all, Japanese scientists have demonstrated that contrary to disinformation about infected bats and unsanitary Chinese markets when the pandemic broke out, all known Covid variants are in fact of laboratory origin. That raises obvious and legitimate questions about criminal intent both on the level of the proposed “cures” and of the fabricated health emergency itself that those cures presumably were developed to resolve.
The vicious treatment allotted to the distinguished German lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is comparable to the persecution of figures like Giordano Bruno. It gives the lie to the collective West’s pharisaical pretence of freedom of expression. The dark stain it leaves will be indelibly recorded as a shameful episode in the history of German jurisprudence.
US Department of State Discloses Names of 5 Europeans Sanctioned for Censorship Against US
Sputnik – 24.12.2025
US Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers has disclosed the list of five Europeans who have been sanctioned by Washington for the extraterritorial censorship of Americans.
The list includes Thierry Breton, who is described as a mastermind of the Digital Services Act (DSA); Imran Ahmed, who headed the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) that called for deplatforming US anti-vaxxers, including now Secretary of Health Robert Kennedy; Clare Melford, who leads the Global Disinformation Index (GDI); Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, the founder of German organization HateAid that was allegedly created to “counter conservative groups” and is an official censor under the DSA; and Josephine Ballon, the co-leader of HateAid.
“These sanctions are visa-related. We aren’t invoking severe Magnitsky-style financial measures, but our message is clear: if you spend your career fomenting censorship of American speech, you’re unwelcome on American soil,” Rogers wrote on X.
The introduction of sanctions against five Europeans was announced by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The secretary said that “these radical activists and weaponized NGOs” had aided censorship crackdowns by foreign states, targeting American speakers and American companies.

