Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax
Life Site News | April 1, 2025
Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.
On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial and federal carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.
“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.
Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”
“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.
The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.
The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.
Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.
The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.
“I think the carbon tax has been in place for approximately six years now coming up in April and the cost keeps going up every year,” SARM president Bill Huber said.
“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.
“We’ve got a carbon tax on power – and that’s going to be gone now – and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.
“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.
The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.
The Zionist Destruction of American Higher Education
By Ron Unz • Unz Review • March 31, 2025
We may be witnessing the ongoing destruction of one of the greatest pillars of postwar American global influence and hegemony.
Late last week an astonishing event occurred in American society, and video clips of that incident quickly went viral across the Internet.
A 30-year-old Tufts doctoral student and Fulbright Scholar from Turkey was walking across her Boston-area neighborhood on the way to a holiday dinner at a friend’s house when she was suddenly seized and abducted in the early evening by six masked federal agents of the Department of Homeland Security. The terrified young woman was handcuffed and taken to a waiting car, secretly detained for the next 24 hours without access to friends, family, or lawyers, then shipped off to a holding cell in Louisiana and scheduled for immediate deportation, although a federal judge has now temporarily stayed the proceedings.
Just one of the Tweets showing a short clip of that incident has been viewed more than 4.5 million times, with a much longer YouTube video accumulating another couple of hundred thousand views.
That very disturbing scene seemed like something out of a Hollywood film chronicling the actions of a dystopian American police state, and that initial impression was only solidified once media reports explained why Rumeysa Ozturk was snatched off the streets of her home town. Her only reported transgression had been her co-authorship of an op-ed piece in the Tufts student newspaper a year earlier sharply criticizing Israel and its ongoing attacks on the civilian population of Gaza.
Apparently, one of the many powerful pro-Israel censorship organizations funded by Zionist billionaires became outraged over her sentiments and decided to make a public example of her, so its minions in the subservient Trump Administration immediately ordered her arrest.
CBS News covered a local protest demonstration demanding the young woman’s release, and quoted the remarks of one of the participants:
“The university campus should absolutely be a place for the free and open exchange of ideas and the fact that someone can just be disappeared into the abyss for voicing an idea is absolutely horrifying,” said rally attendee Sam Wachman.
Now supposed that such a scene—for such a reason—had taken place on the streets of Russia, China, Iran, or any other country viewed with great disfavor by our government. Surely that incident would have quickly become the centerpiece of a massive global propaganda offensive aimed at blackening the reputation of the regime responsible. Audiences worldwide would have been forcefully told that the arrest demonstrated the terrible dangers of living in a society lacking the freedoms guaranteed by our own Constitution and our Bill of Rights. I don’t recall seeing any recent propaganda campaigns along these lines, so that suggests that such incidents are extremely rare in those countries.
But unfortunately that is hardly the case in today’s America. A day or two before that Tufts graduate student was snatched off the streets of her city, a 21-year-old Columbia University junior went into hiding to avoid a similar fate after federal agents raided her campus dorm to arrest her. As the Times reported, high school valedictorian Yunseo Chung had moved to the U.S. with her family from South Korea when she was 7, but her permanent residency was suddenly revoked for her public criticism of Israeli policy. She was ordered immediately deported back to a country that she barely even remembered.
This followed the storm of controversy unleashed earlier this month by the very high profile arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate student heavily involved in last year’s campus protests against the Israeli attacks on Gaza. Seized in an early morning raid on his campus student housing, which he shared with his wife, an American citizen eight months pregnant, he was taken off to detention, first in New Jersey and then transferred to a holding cell in Louisiana, once again with no initial access to his family, friends, or lawyers.
As a Green Card holder—a permanent legal resident of the U.S.—he was considered fully entitled to all the normal rights and privileges of an American citizen, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that his Green Card would be canceled and he would be deported based upon an obscure legal doctrine never previously employed for that purpose, eliciting a strong legal challenge in federal court. Moreover, his transfer from a New Jersey jurisdiction to a different one in the Deep South also seemed to violate normal legal procedures.
A week after that arrest, Ranjani Srinivasan, another Columbia doctoral candidate from India on a Fulbright Scholarship, hurriedly packed her bags and fled the country to Canada when she narrowly missed being arrested by federal authorities who raided her student housing. As the New York Times reported:
“The atmosphere seemed so volatile and dangerous,” Ms. Srinivasan, 37, said on Friday in an interview with The New York Times, her first public remarks since leaving. “So I just made a quick decision.”
A day earlier Rubio explained that he had already authorized the arrest and immediate deportation of more than 300 students around the country for their criticism of Israel, so these particular cases obviously represented merely the tip of a very large iceberg.
In past decades, the academic leadership of a top Ivy League school such as Columbia might have stoutly defended the students in its community. But any such resistance was broken when the Trump Administration suddenly pulled $400 million in annual funding. The demands included full cooperation with the arrest of any students critical of Israeli policies, the creation of a new internal security force to suppress any anti-Israel campus protests, and “receivership” for the university’s prestigious Middle Eastern Studies Program, presumably resulting in firm Zionist control.
Acting President Katrina Armstrong bowed to those demands, sacrificing the academic freedom of her faculty members and the personal freedom of her students. But faced with such enormous conflicting pressures, she then resigned on Friday evening, some seven months after her predecessor had resigned for roughly similar reasons.
That same day newspapers also reported that the top leadership of Harvard University’s equally prestigious Middle Eastern Studies Center had been dismissed, probably ensuring that after more than seventy years this independent academic organization would henceforth become firmly pro-Israel in its orientation. Last year, after Harvard’s previous president had strongly defended academic freedom before a hostile Congressional committee, she was quickly forced to resign.
As I casually examined the home page of the New York Times website on Saturday, I noticed five different articles reporting these striking blows to intellectual freedom at a number of our top American universities, and it’s quite possible that I may have missed one or two others.
- Columbia President Is Replaced as Trump Threatens University’s Funding
- Leaders of Harvard’s Middle Eastern Studies Center Will Leave
- University of Minnesota Student Detained by Immigration Agents
- Targeting of Tufts Student for Deportation Stuns Friends and Teachers
- How Colleges Are Cracking Down on Students Now
For the last several generations, America’s elite academic institutions have been among the most prestigious in the world, drawing top students from across the globe and constituting a central pillar of our country’s soft power. Until last year, no previous case came to mind of an Ivy League president having been abruptly removed for political reasons. But over the last twelve months, four or five different Ivy League presidents have suffered that fate.
Similarly, I had never heard of any previous cases of peaceful college students being arrested by teams of masked federal officers, either seized from their dorm rooms in sudden raids or snatched off the streets of their local city.
Consider an ironic historical comparison. During the early 1950s the Rosenbergs were convicted and executed for their involvement in a Soviet spy-ring that gave our nuclear weapons secrets to Stalin. But as far as I know their arrest was handled in a very subdued fashion, with merely a couple of FBI agents quietly taking them into federal custody despite the capital charges that they faced. So apparently public criticism of Israel is today regarded as a far more serious and dangerous offense than nuclear espionage had been at the absolute height of the Cold War.
Indeed, the closest historical example that comes to mind were the notorious Palmer Raids of late 1919 and early 1920, which led to the deportation of several hundred immigrants. But these round-ups occurred in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution and waves of terrorist bombing attacks across many American cities, with Attorney-General A. Mitchell Palmer narrowly surviving two separate assassination attempts, including a bombing that destroyed his own Washington, DC home. Meanwhile, most of the immigrants arrested and deported were relatively recent arrivals, generally anarchist or Bolshevik radicals who had declared their intent to overthrow the American government.
Perhaps there have been previous examples of college students arrested merely for writing campus newspaper op-eds advocating peaceful and perfectly legal positions. But I don’t recall reading of any such egregious cases in my introductory history textbooks so I tend to doubt it.
One rather strange aspect of the current situation is that no students seem to have been arrested for voicing public criticism of the American government or even President Donald Trump. Only criticism of the Jewish State of Israel or Jews themselves seems to provoke such severe legal repression. This brings to mind a very shrewd observation, widely misattributed to Voltaire:
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
Since World War II elite American universities have tended to attract the best and the brightest young men and women from around the world, thereby shaping the minds of so many future global leaders. So I suspect that these shocking news stories of harsh ideological crackdowns on academic freedom and sudden dramatic arrests by masked federal agents are already reverberating around the world, severely damaging one of the few remaining pillars of American geopolitical dominance.
Perhaps only small numbers of ordinary Americans have been following the sudden, desperate plight of these top students from Turkey, South Korea, or India, but I think that a very large fraction of the educated elites of those important American allies are fully aware of what has transpired, and they are utterly horrified.
Under the control of its pro-Israel masters, the leading figures of the Trump Administration seem determined to severely wound or actually destroy the foremost institutions of our globally-dominant system of higher education.
Indeed, even before the latest round of these striking incidents, the eminent political scientist John Mearsheimer had declared that the Israel Lobby posed the greatest threat to American freedom of speech, with his views strongly seconded by Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University and also former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi:
Although I was deeply shocked by these harsh Trump Administration attacks against freedom of speech and academic freedom, perhaps I should not have been. In many respects, they merely extended what had already occurred last year under his equally pro-Israel Democratic predecessor President Joseph Biden, as I had covered at the time in numerous articles.
For example, almost eleven months ago in early May 2024 I discussed the ongoing waves of university protests and the reasons behind their appearance, as well as the unprecedented crackdowns used to suppress them, a reaction so totally different than what had occurred regarding any previous campus political activism. Given the very harsh legal sanctions now imposed upon many of the participants, I think it’s worth revisiting that history at length:
From the years of my childhood I’d always been aware that political activism and protests were a regular feature of college life, with the 1960s movement against our Vietnam War representing one of its peaks, an effort widely lauded in our later textbooks and media accounts for its heroic idealism. During the 1980s I remember seeing a long line of crudely constructed shanties protesting South African Apartheid that spent weeks occupying the edges of the Harvard Yard or perhaps it was the Stanford Quad, and I think around the same time other shanties and protesters at UCLA maintained a long vigil in support of the Jewish Refuseniks of the USSR. Political protests seemed as much a normal part of college years as final exams and had largely replaced the hazing rituals and wild pranks of traditional fraternities, which were increasingly vilified as politically incorrect by hostile social censors among the students and faculty.
Over the last decade or so, the Black Lives Matter movement raised such nationwide protests by college students to new heights, both on and off campus, often involving large marches, sit-ins, or vandalism, and this may have been propelled by the increasing influence of smartphones and social media. Meanwhile, the mainstream media regularly praised and promoted this “racial justice movement,” which reached its sharp peak following the death of George Floyd in the summer of 2020. That incident triggered a massive wave of generally youthful political protests, riots, and looting that engulfed some 200 cities across America, the worst urban unrest since the late 1960s. But unlike that earlier era, most of our establishment media and political class fiercely denounced any suggestions that the police be deployed to quell the violence. Indeed, in many or most cases local law enforcement stood down and did nothing, even as some of their political masters loudly raised the outcry “Defund the Police!”
During those years many universities became heavily caught up in such controversies. Yale renamed its Calhoun residential college in early 2017 and the list of name changes due to the 2020 George Floyd protests is so long that it has its own Wikipedia page, a list that included some of our most storied military bases such as Ft. Bragg and Ft. Hood. Verbal or even physical attacks against the symbols and statues of America’s most famous presidents and national heroes became quite common and were often favorably reported in the media, with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Christopher Columbus all being vilified and denounced, sometimes with elite endorsement. A lead opinion piece in the New York Times called for the Jefferson Memorial to be replaced with a towering statue of a black woman while one of the regular Times columnists repeatedly demanded that all monuments honoring George Washington should suffer a similar fate. Many observers argued that America almost seemed to be undergoing its own version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution amid widespread claims that much of our entire historical past was irretrievably tainted and therefore had to be expunged from the public square.
Most of these political protests, especially those on college campuses, were widely hailed by those holding the media megaphones as signifying one of the greatest virtues of American democracy. The many elite defenders of such social and cultural upheavals argued that these events demonstrated the great strength of our society, which freely allowed the fiercest public attacks against our most sacred national icons and heroes. Americans accepted the sort of searing self-criticism that would surely be permitted almost nowhere else in the world.
That long history of permitting or even glorifying public protests against perceived injustices had naturally been absorbed and taken to heart by the young college students who began their classes in September 2023. Then within weeks, a remarkably daring surprise raid by the Hamas militants of long-besieged Gaza caught the Israelis napping and surmounted the high-tech defenses that had cost perhaps a half-billion dollars to construct. Many hundreds of Israeli soldiers and security officers were killed along with similar numbers of civilians, with most of the latter probably dying from the friendly-fire of Israel’s own panic-stricken and trigger-happy military units. Some 240 Israeli soldiers and civilians were captured and taken back to Gaza as prisoners, with Hamas hoping to exchange them for the freedom of the many thousands of Palestinian civilians who had been held for years in Israeli prisons, often under brutal conditions.
As usual, our overwhelmingly pro-Israel mainstream media portrayed the attack in extremely one-sided fashion, devoid of any historical context, a pattern that had been followed for three generations. As a result, Israel received an enormous outpouring of public and elite sympathy as it mobilized for a retaliatory attack against Gaza. Within days, our own Secretary of State Antony Blinken flew to Israel declaring that he came “as a Jew” and pledging America’s unwavering support in that moment of crisis, sentiments completely echoed by President Joseph Biden and his entire administration. But the Hamas fighters and their Israeli captives were hidden in a network of fortified tunnels and rooting them out might produce heavy casualties, so Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisors decided upon a different strategy.
Instead of attacking Hamas, Netanyahu took advantage of the wave of global sympathy by unleashing an unprecedented military assault against Gaza’s more than two million civilians, apparently intending to kill huge numbers of them and drive the remainder into Egypt’s Sinai desert, allowing Israel to annex their territory and resettle it with Jews. Soon afterward, the Israeli government began distributing assault rifles to the Jewish Settlers of the West Bank, ordering some 24,000 of those automatic weapons for that purpose. Putting such armaments into the hands of religious fanatics would surely lead to local massacres and these might provide an excuse for driving all those millions of Palestinians over the border into Jordan. The ultimate result would be the creation of a racially-pure Greater Israel stretching “From the River to the Sea,” the longstanding dream of the Zionist movement. So if he were successful, Netanyahu’s place in Jewish history might become a glorious one, with his many venal sins and blunders easily overlooked.
As American airlifts supplied an unending flood of the necessary munitions, the Israelis began a massive aerial bombardment campaign against densely-populated Gaza and its helpless residents. Secure in their underground tunnels, relatively few Hamas fighters were killed, but Gaza’s civilians suffered devastating losses, much of it inflicted by two thousand pound bombs, almost never previously deployed against urban targets. Large portions of Gaza were soon transformed into moonscapes, with some 100,000 buildings destroyed, including hospitals, churches, mosques, schools, universities, government offices, bakeries, and all the other infrastructure necessary for maintaining civilian life. After just a few weeks, the Financial Times reported that the destruction inflicted upon much of Gaza was already worse than had been suffered by German cities after years of Allied bombing attacks during World War II.
Although Netanyahu was strictly secular, he played to his religious base by publicly declaring the Palestinians to be the tribe of Amalek, whom the Hebrew God had commanded be exterminated down to the last newborn baby. Many other top Israeli leaders voiced very similar genocidal sentiments, and some of the more zealously religious Israeli soldiers and commanders probably took those statements quite literally.
This gigantic bloodlust was further inflamed as the Israeli government and its supportive propagandists began promoting outrageous Hamas atrocity-hoaxes such as beheaded or roasted Israeli babies, sexual mutilations, and gang-rapes. The notoriously pro-Israel global media credulously reported these stories, using them to deflect attention from the enormous ongoing slaughter of Palestinian civilians. To ensure that the coverage remained one-sided, the Israelis targeted independent journalists in Gaza for death, killing some 140 of them over the last few months, a figure as large as the combined total in all the world’s other wars over the last several years.
With Israel’s leaders publicly declaring their genocidal plans for their Palestinian enemies and Israeli troops committing the greatest televised massacre of helpless civilians in the history of the world, international organizations gradually came under strong pressure to involve themselves in the ongoing conflict. In late December, South Africa filed a 91-page legal brief with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of committing genocide. Within a few weeks the ICJ jurists issued a series of near-unanimous rulings supporting those charges and declaring that the Gazans were at serious risk of suffering a potential genocide at Israel’s hands, with Israel’s own appointed judge, a former Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, concurring in most of those verdicts.
But instead of backing off, Netanyahu’s government merely redoubled its attacks against Gaza, tightening the blockade of food shipments by banning the UN organization responsible for distributing them. The Israelis apparently believed that the combination of starvation, bombs, and missiles would be the most effective means of killing or driving out all the Palestinians.
In past decades, these horrifying events might have gone relatively unnoticed, with the overwhelmingly pro-Israel gatekeepers of our mainstream media ensuring that little if any of this distressing information reached the eyes or ears of ordinary Americans. But technological developments had changed this media landscape since video clips on relatively uncensored social platforms such as TikTok and Elon Musk’s Twitter now easily circumvented that blockade. Despite their decades of suffering and oppression, Gaza’s Palestinians were a fully modern people, well-equipped with smartphones, and the scenes they filmed were shared worldwide, quickly attracting huge audiences among the younger Americans who relied upon social media as their primary source of news.
For generations, college students had been heavily indoctrinated with the horrors of the Holocaust, endlessly told that they must never remain silent while helpless men, women, and children were brutally attacked and slaughtered. The images they now saw of devastated cities and dead or dying children seemed exactly like something out of the movies, but they were instead happening in real-time in the physical world.
A couple of years earlier, the Trump and the Biden Administrations had both jointly proclaimed that the Chinese government was guilty of “genocide” against its Uighur minority despite lack of any evidence that significant numbers of Uighurs had been harmed let alone killed. So by that standard, the total destruction of Gaza and the massive slaughter or deliberate starvation of millions of its people obviously constituted an enormous “genocide,” and within weeks student activists all across college campuses had taken up that cry and begun organizing public protests against the horrendous massacre that Israel was committing.
Three years earlier, a lifelong career criminal named George Floyd had died of a drug overdose while in police custody, and a single, highly-misleading video of his last moments had provoked the greatest wave of American public protests since the late 1960s. So it was hardly surprising that the widespread dissemination of hundreds or thousands of videos showing dead and mutilated Gazan children inspired a powerful protest movement. But this time, instead of being praised for their humanitarian commitment, those students—and the university administrators who allowed their protests—were ferociously attacked and punished as I described at the time:
With graphic images of devastated Gaza neighborhoods and dead Palestinian children so widespread on Twitter and other social media outlets, polls have revealed that a majority of younger Americans now favor Hamas and the Palestinians in their ongoing struggle with Israel. This is a shocking reversal from the views of their parents, which had been shaped by generations of overwhelmingly pro-Israel material across broadcast television, films, and print publications, and such trends are only likely to continue now that Israel is being prosecuted in the International Court of Justice by South Africa and 22 other nations, accused of committing genocide in Gaza.
As a consequence of these strong youthful sentiments, anti-Israel demonstrations have erupted at many of our universities, outraging numerous pro-Israel billionaire donors. Almost immediately, some of the latter launched a harsh retaliatory campaign, with many corporate leaders declaring that they would permanently blacklist from future employment opportunities any college students publicly supporting the Palestinian cause, underscoring these threats with a widespread “doxxing” campaign at Harvard and other elite colleges.
A few weeks ago, our uniformly pro-Israel elected officials entered the fray, calling the presidents of several of our most elite colleges—Harvard, Penn, and MIT—to testify before them regarding alleged “antisemitism” on their campuses. Members of Congress severely brow-beat these officials for permitting anti-Israel activities, even ignorantly and absurdly accusing them of allowing public calls for “Jewish genocide” on their campuses.
The responses of these college leaders emphasized their support for freedom of political speech but were deemed so unsatisfactory by pro-Israel donors and their mainstream media allies that enormous pressure was exerted to remove them. Within days, the Penn president and her supportive Board chairman had been forced to resign, and soon afterward Harvard’s first black president suffered the same fate, as pro-Israel groups released evidence of her widespread academic plagiarism to drive her from office.
I am unaware of any previous case in which the president of an elite American college had been so rapidly removed from office for ideological reasons and two successive examples within just a few weeks seems an absolutely unprecedented development, having enormous implications for academic freedom.
I’d think that most of these students were absolutely stunned at such reactions. For decades, they and their predecessors had freely protested on a wide range of political causes without ever encountering even a sliver of such vicious retaliation, let alone an organized campaign that quickly forced the resignation of two of the Ivy League presidents who had allowed their protests. Some of their student organizations were immediately banned and the future careers of the protesters were harshly threatened, but the horrifying images from Gaza continued to reach their smartphones. As Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL had previously explained in a leaked phone call, “We have a major TikTok problem.”
Indeed, the Israelis continued to generate an avalanche of gripping content for those videos. Mobs of Israeli activists regularly blocked the passage of food-trucks, and within a few weeks, senior UN officials declared that more than a million Gazans were on the verge of a deadly famine. When the desperate, starving Gazans swarmed one of those few food delivery convoys allowed through, the Israeli military shot and killed more than 100 of them in the “Flour Massacre” and this was later repeated. All these horrific scenes of death and deliberate starvation were broadcast worldwide on social media, with some of the worst examples coming from the accounts of gleeful Israeli soldiers, such as their video of the corpse of a Palestinian child being eaten by a starving dog. Another image showed the remains of a bound Palestinian prisoner who had been crushed flat while still alive by an Israeli tank. According to a European human rights organization, the Israelis had regularly used bulldozers to bury alive large numbers of Palestinians. UN officials reported finding mass graves near several hospitals, with the victims found bound and stripped, shot execution-style. As Internet provocateur Andrew Anglin has pointed out, the behavior of the Israeli Jews does not seem merely evil but “cartoonishly evil,” with all their blatant crimes seeming to be based upon the script of some over-the-top propaganda-film but instead actually taking place in real life…
These grim developments have naturally sparked a continuing wave of student protests condemning Israel for committing these monstrous crimes and our own Biden Administration for enabling them with money and munitions. Prof. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago is one of our highest-ranking mainstream academics, a very sober-minded scholar of the Realist School, and in an interview last week he expressed little surprise at these matters. After all, he pointed out, Israel was obviously an Apartheid-state currently committing a genocide before the eyes of the entire world so political protests on college campuses were only to be expected.
Throughout these last few months, pro-Israel partisans have regularly denounced the anti-Zionism of their opponents as antisemitic and insisted that it be suppressed. Back in February I had noted the ironic implications of their position:
This is certainly an odd situation, warranting careful analysis and explanation. The word “antisemitism” merely means criticizing or disliking Jews, and in recent years, Israel’s partisans have demanded with some success that the term should be extended to encompass anti-Zionism as well, namely hostility to the Jewish state.
But let us suppose that we concede the latter point and agree with pro-Israel activists that “anti-Zionism” is indeed a form of “antisemitism.” Over the last few months, the Israeli government has brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of helpless civilians in Gaza, committing the greatest televised massacre in the history of the world, with its top leaders using explicitly genocidal language to describe their plans for the Palestinians. Indeed, the South African government submitted a 91 page legal brief to the International Court of Justice cataloging those Israeli statements, prompting a near-unanimous ruling by the jurists that millions of Palestinians faced the prospect of genocide at Israeli hands.
These days most Westerners claim to regard genocide in a decidedly negative light. So does this not syllogistically require them to embrace and endorse “antisemitism”? Surely a visitor from Mars would be very puzzled by this strange dilemma and the philosophical and psychological contortions it seems to require.
It is rather surprising that the extremely “politically correct” ruling elites of America and the rest of the Western world are loudly cheering on the racially-exclusivist State of Israel even as it kills enormous numbers of women and children and works very hard to starve to death some two million civilians in its unprecedented genocidal rampage. After all, the far milder and more circumspect regime of Apartheid South Africa was universally condemned, boycotted, and sanctioned for merely the tiniest sliver of such misdeeds.
An important turning point may have come on April 17th when Columbia University President Minouche Shafik, herself of Egyptian origins, was raked over the coals by a Congressional Committee for permitting anti-Israel protests on her campus. Her interrogators claimed that these were “antisemitic” acts and caused some of Columbia’s Jewish students to “feel unsafe,” a dire situation that seemingly trumped both freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Shafik may or may not have agreed with those arguments, but she surely remembered that just a few months earlier her counterparts at Harvard and Penn had both been summarily purged for giving the wrong answers, and she hardly wished to share their fate. So she firmly promised to root out all such public antisemitism at her university and soon afterward 100 helmeted NYC riot police were invited onto the campus to crush the demonstrations and arrest the protesters, mostly charging the latter with “trespassing,” a rather strange accusation given that they were enrolled students on the grounds of their own campus.
This sort of harsh and immediate police crackdown seems almost unprecedented in the modern history of college political protests. Back in the 1960s, there were a few scattered cases of police being called in to arrest militant protesters who had seized and occupied administrative offices at Harvard, paraded around with firearms at Cornell, or burned down a campus building at Stanford. But I have never heard of peaceful political protesters being arrested on the grounds of their own college merely for the content of their political speech.
Although the crackdown at Columbia demanded by those members of Congress was obviously intended to quell American campus protests, it predictably had the opposite effect. Scenes of burly, helmeted riot police arresting peaceful college students on their own campus went viral on social media, inspiring a wave of similar protests at numerous other colleges across the nation, with police arrests quickly following in most locations. By latest count, some 2,300 students have now been arrested at dozens of universities.
The actions by the Georgia State Police at Emory University seemed particularly outrageous, and a Tweet containing a clip of one of those incidents has already been viewed some 1.5 million times. A 57-year-old tenured professor of Economics named Carolyn Frohlin was concerned at seeing one of her own students being wrestled to the pavement and walked towards him only to find herself brutally thrown to the ground, hogtied, and arrested by a couple of hulking officers led by a sergeant. CNN anchor Jim Acosta was utterly shocked when he reported this story…
Even worse scenes took place at UCLA as an encampment of peaceful protesters was violently attacked and beaten by a mob of pro-Israel thugs having no university connection but armed with bars, clubs, and fireworks, resulting in some serious injuries. A professor of History described her outrage as the nearby police stood aside and did nothing while UCLA students were attacked by outsiders, with 200 of the victims then arrested. According to local journalists, the violent mob had been organized and paid by pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman.
I have never previously heard of organized mobs of outside thugs being allowed to violently assault peaceful American student protesters on their own campus, something that seems far more reminiscent of turbulent Latin American dictatorships. The closest example that comes to mind might be the notorious 1970 “Hard Hat Riot” in New York City in which hundreds of pro-Nixon construction workers battled similar numbers of anti-war protesters on the streets of lower Manhattan, an incident so infamous that it has an extensive Wikipedia page of its own.
However, a somewhat different but much closer and more recent analogy may exist. After Donald Trump launched his unexpectedly successful presidential campaign, right-wing, pro-Trump speakers invited to college campuses were regularly harassed and assaulted along with their audiences by mobs of violent antifa, with many of the latter apparently recruited and paid for the purpose.
This sort of very physical “deplatforming” was intended to ensure that their threatening ideas never reached impressionable college students and led conservatives to begin organizing their own groups such as the Proud Boys to provide physical protection. Violent clashes occurred at Berkeley and some other colleges, while similar antifa riots in DC disrupted Trump’s inauguration. From what I remember, most of the organizers and financial backers of these violent antifa groups seemed to be Jewish, so perhaps it’s not surprising that other Jewish leaders have now begun employing very similar tactics to suppress different political movements that they regard as distasteful.
Some years ago a former senior AIPAC official once boasted to a friendly journalist that if he wrote anything on a simple napkin, within 24 hours he could get signatures of 70 Senators to endorse it, and the political power of the ADL is equally formidable. Therefore it was hardly surprising that last week an overwhelming bipartisan 320-91 majority in the House passed a bill broadening the meaning of anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the anti-discrimination policies of the Department of Education by codifying the definitions used in our Civil Rights laws to classify those ideas as discriminatory.
Although I haven’t tried to read the text, the obvious intent is to force colleges to expunge such noxious activities as anti-Israel protests from their campus community or face loss of federal funds. This represents a striking attack against academic freedom as well as America’s traditional freedom of speech and thought, and may also pressure other private organizations to adopt similar policies. In a particularly ironic twist, the definition of antisemitism used in the bill clearly covers portions of the Christian Bible, so the ignorant and compromised Republican legislators have now wholeheartedly endorsed banning the Bible in a country in which 95% of the population has Christian roots.
Israel/Gaza: The Masks Come Off in American Society
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • May 6, 2024 • 6,800 Words
Until now, revocation of a permanent residency Green Card could only occur if its holder had committed a serious felony such as murder or rape, but the empowered pro-Israel partisans of the Trump Administration have now stretched that law to include criticism of Israel or Jews, arguing that such criticism undermined the vital American national goal of combatting antisemitism across the world. When combined with last year’s bipartisan Congressional enactment of the Antisemitism Awareness Act, this might set a legal precedent for actually criminalizing such political views, especially if these can be portrayed as “providing material support” to such officially-designated terrorist organizations as Hamas.
Perhaps despite the determined efforts of the ADL and similar organizations, this legal transformation will not occur. But then again I had never expected to see masked federal agents abducting university students for writing campus newspaper op-eds criticizing Israel.
Similarly, consider the mass arrests and long prison sentences of the January 6th protesters in DC. Nearly all of the defendants had been guilty of nothing more than trespassing and perhaps petty vandalism, but their severe punishment demonstrated that strong ideological and media pressure can successfully force American courts to stretch the law in extreme ways in order to severely punish individuals engaging in political activity that has been sufficiently demonized.
From a broader perspective, we have already seen developments that suggest American society and its political life have reached a very strange point.
Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate are earnest young Jewish progressives who run the Grayzone, a webzine and YouTube channel of their own. In several articles last year, I noted their lengthy discussion of how the pro-Israel donor class had recently crushed any political dissent within the Democratic Party, contrary to the overwhelming views of its voter base.
In that same livestream, Blumenthal and Maté also focused on the methods used to keep American elected officials in line on this issue, noting that a few days ago Zionist billionaires spent an almost unprecedented $8 million to defeat Rep. Cori Bush in her own Democratic primary, angry that the black progressive member of “the squad” had called for a ceasefire in Gaza. Just a few weeks earlier, roughly twice as much money had been spent by similar individuals for very similar reasons to successfully eliminate her close political ally Rep. Jamaal Bowman.
Those two primary races were by far the most expensive in American history, and in their aftermath most members of Congress must surely realize that they only remain in office at the sufferance of AIPAC and its ideological allies. Although leading progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denounced the role of big money in those primary races, she was obviously too fearful of pro-Israel donors to even mention whose big money had been involved. The Grayzone editors were far more candid and accurately characterized the dollars as being deployed by “the foreign agents of an Apartheid state.”
These incidents seem to suggest a rather peculiar situation. It appears that American elected officials will regularly be removed from office if they are deemed insufficiently loyal to a certain foreign country, hardly the sort of governmental framework usually discussed in our political science textbooks.
Despite their longstanding coverage of the Middle East conflict, I do not think that either of the Grayzone editors had ever contemplated the horrors currently being inflicted upon the suffering Palestinians, nor the totally slavish support for Israel expressed by the entire Biden Administration. These shocking developments prompted ideological reassessments and in May I’d described some ironic statements they had made in an earlier podcast:
This massive suppression of all political opposition to Zionism through a mixture of legal, quasi-legal, and illegal means has hardly escaped the notice of various outraged critics. Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate are young Jewish progressives very sharply critical of Israel and its current attack on Gaza, and in their most recent livestream video a day or two before that Congressional vote, they agreed that Zionists were the greatest threat to American freedom and that our country was “under political occupation” by the Israel Lobby.
They may or may not have been aware that their angry denunciation closely paralleled one of the most notorious Far Right phrases of the last half-century, which condemned America’s existing political system as nothing more than ZOG, a “Zionist Occupation Government.” Over time, obvious factual reality gradually becomes apparent regardless of ideological predispositions.
By August, I noticed that they had begun explicitly using that incendiary term in their most recent podcast:
That particular article of mine proved quite popular so it’s possible that my remarks may have directly or indirectly found their way to those individuals. Whether or not that was the case, in their current podcast they mentioned that although they’d always dismissed “ZOG” as some ridiculously antisemitic expression, recent events had demonstrated its reality, and Americans were obviously now living in “one nation under ZOG.” I think this marked an important step forward in their understanding of our world.
Soon afterward, their Grayzone channel was temporarily banned from YouTube, and when it returned a week later, the two hosts nervously joked about the acronym they must carefully avoid uttering, using several rhyming words to enlighten their audience. I suspect that many other thoughtful Americans have also recently begun entertaining notions that they would have always previously dismissed as ridiculous.
But over the last six months, these unfortunate trends have merely accelerated. So a couple of weeks ago the initial Columbia University arrest prompted them to release a new Grayzone podcast that they entitled “Shalom, the Occupation’s Home.”
Blumenthal emphasized that Americans were “living under some kind of Zionist occupation” and the two hosts then joked about how useful it would be if someone could come up with a catchy, three-letter acronym to describe our national predicament. They did so again later in the same show as they described the overwhelming Zionist control over the American government.
Such cautious circumlocutions are quite understandable given the very real risk of YouTube deplatforming, but individuals who have long since suffered that fate can afford to speak much more boldly.
As I have emphasized, obvious factual reality produces a certain amount of descriptive convergence even across the most disparate ideological camps. Late last year a fierce right-winger named Stew Peters released a video documentary entitled “Occupied” on many of these same issues and other related ones, running close to two hours. Although it unfortunately contained quite a lot of misinformation, I’d say that at least 70-75% of the material was correct, and it included many video clips that I hadn’t previously seen.
Although it was originally freely released across the Internet, those copies no longer seem available for viewing, but apparently it can still be watched on his website by anyone who registers with an email address.
Last week I published a lengthy article summarizing the strong, even overwhelming evidence that Israel and its American collaborators had been responsible for the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers. One of the leading motives for those killings had been the determination of the Kennedys to break the growing political power of the nascent Israel Lobby.
- How Israel Killed the Kennedys
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 24, 2025 • 11,500 Words
Now six decades later, that same political force has metastasized to such an extent that it largely controls both of America’s major political parties and nearly all the members of Congress, and may now be on the verge of successfully eliminating our traditional constitutional rights, including freedom of political speech. When university students are snatched off city streets by masked federal agents merely for writing an op-ed in their campus newspapers, matters have clearly reached a very perilous state in American society.
Related Reading:
Germany’s CDU-SPD Coalition Eyes Stricter Online Speech Controls
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | March 31, 2025
Germany may soon tighten its grip on digital speech even further, as internal documents obtained by BILD from the ongoing coalition talks between the center-right CDU (led by Friedrich Merz) and the center-left SPD (headed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz) point to an unsettling agenda: expanding the state’s authority to police so-called “disinformation.”
Behind closed doors, the prospective coalition appears to be crafting policies that would significantly broaden state influence over what can and cannot be said online — particularly on social media platforms. These proposals, originating from the coalition’s “Culture and Media” working group, show a clear intent to escalate pressure on platforms like X and intensify efforts to suppress content labeled as “fake news.”
The push is rooted in the belief, echoed in the coalition’s exploratory paper, that “disinformation and fake news” pose a danger to democracy. But the negotiating paper goes even further, declaring: “The deliberate dissemination of false factual allegations is not covered by freedom of expression.” This phrase, quoted by BILD, lays the groundwork for potentially sweeping restrictions on speech, raising serious alarms among legal experts and free speech advocates.
The document argues that a supposedly independent media regulatory body must be empowered to crack down on so-called “information manipulation,” as well as “hatred and incitement” — all under the vague condition that it adheres to “clear legal requirements.” But when the government or its proxies begin defining what qualifies as misinformation, the door swings wide open for politically motivated censorship.
Many will see this as a dangerous step toward criminalizing dissent. Legal scholar Volker Boehme-Neßler of the University of Oldenburg told BILD, “Lies are only prohibited if they are punishable, for example in the case of incitement to hatred. Otherwise, you can lie.” He also stressed that the boundary between fact and opinion is often blurry and contested: “It is not a simple question of what is a statement of fact and what is an expression of opinion. In most cases, courts interpret freedom of expression very broadly.”
The move mirrors broader concerns raised internationally. US Vice President JD Vance previously slammed Germany’s trajectory on both mass migration and censorship, warning that Berlin’s crackdown on dissent risks becoming self-destructive.
With political speech increasingly vulnerable to arbitrary classification as misinformation, critics worry that these new policies represent not a defense of democracy, but an erosion of one of its most fundamental pillars: the right to free and open debate.
Israel uses human shields in Gaza ‘at least six times a day,’ says Israeli officer
MEMO | April 1, 2025
Utah Becomes First State to Ban Fluoride in Public Drinking Water
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 28, 2025
Utah became the first state to ban the addition of fluoride to public drinking water after Gov. Spencer Cox signed the law late Thursday night. The ban will take effect on May 7.
Rep. Stephanie Gricius, who sponsored the bill, said in an email to The Defender that she was thrilled the governor signed it. She said:
“The proper role of government is to provide safe, clean drinking water, not mass medicate the public. While we have banned it from being added to our water systems, we have also increased access to fluoride tablets through the pharmacies so any Utahn who wishes to take it may. But it will now be a decision each individual can make for themselves.”
The new law bans water fluoridation, but also gives pharmacists new authority to prescribe fluoride supplement pills. Typically, such pills can be prescribed only by a dentist or physician.
“What Utah has accomplished is historic, a huge step forward,” said Rick North, board member of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which won a landmark ruling in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the agency’s failure to appropriately regulate the chemical.
North said Utah’s law “is a milestone for public health in the country and part of a nationwide trend toward removing this toxin from our water.”
Cox signed the bill amid growing opposition to water fluoridation across the country, driven by new research published in top journals showing that fluoride exposure is linked to lowered IQ in children and other negative neuro-cognitive effects — even at fluoridation levels currently recommended by the public health agencies.
The research also indicates that water fluoridation has little to no effect on dental health.
Utah provided a ‘working scientific study’
Dentist Griffin Cole, conference chairman of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, said Utah provided a “working scientific study” showing that fluoride had no positive effects on dental health because almost half the state already didn’t fluoridate its water.
“They were able to look at decay rates in areas that were fluoridated and areas that weren’t,” he said, “and there was no difference.”
Cox similarly pointed this out in comments to ABC4 Utah earlier this month.
“You would think you would see drastically different outcomes with half the state not getting it and half the state getting it,” Cox told ABC4. “I’ve talked to a lot of dentists. We haven’t seen that. So it’s got to be a really high bar for me if we’re going to require people to be medicated by their government.”
Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D., who co-authored the 2006 National Resource Council study on fluoride toxicity, said she hopes more states will follow Utah’s example.
She added:
“The evidence over 20+ years indicates an increased risk to children’s health from exposure to fluoride prenatally and during infancy and early childhood, especially for neurodevelopment. Reduced IQ in children has been found for exposures in the range expected with community water fluoridation. Infants fed formula prepared with fluoridated tap water have some of the highest exposures in the population, at an extremely vulnerable developmental stage.”
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland also said that she hoped that Utah’s new law would be a catalyst for further state removals of fluoride. “CHD applauds Utah on this momentous action to remove fluoride from water. As a result, we will likely see significant health improvements there.”
Brenda Staudenmaier, another plaintiff in the fluoride lawsuit, said she was glad to see states making moves to protect their citizens, “particularly the most vulnerable groups — developing fetuses and bottle-fed infants — who are at greatest risk of fluoride neurotoxicity.”
Staudenmaier said that focusing on fluoride for 80 years had “created blind spots with unintended consequences,” and she hopes that now dental associations will “use their large membership to focus on increasing Medicaid reimbursements, ensuring that low-income individuals have access to dental care.”
Staudenmaier added:
“They should advocate for reducing sugar in public school breakfast programs, promoting breastfeeding to support proper mouth development in children, raising public awareness about how mouth breathing impacts decay risk, and encouraging the use of xylitol gum after meals for children with sensory issues and vitamin D supplementation.”
Moms Against Fluoridation, another plaintiff whose mission is to ban fluoridation nationally, also celebrated the news: “By banning adding this ‘drug’ to the water, citizens in Utah have now reclaimed a real freedom — they can choose for themselves whether to take fluoride.”
“The peer reviewed science is now so clear and so abundant that drinking fluoridation chemicals injures health and fails to reduce tooth decay. Water fluoridation has joined the list that includes lead, asbestos and DDT,” the organization added.
FAN Executive Director Stuart Cooper said, “Government-funded science is clear that fluoridation is causing harm to our children on par with lead and arsenic. Utah is the first state to make the practice illegal, but they join Hawaii and 98% of Europe in rejecting the practice.”
CDC, AAP, ADA continue to support fluoridation despite new evidence
The growing body of research showing fluoride’s toxic effects gained national attention when a federal judge ruled in the lawsuit brought by FAN, Mothers Against Fluoridation, Food and Water Watch and others against the EPA that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and that the agency must regulate it.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen’s 80-page decision outlined the scientific evidence that fluoride exposure is linked to reduced IQ in children. The EPA announced that it planned to appeal the ruling days before President Joe Biden left office.
Major medical associations and public health agencies — including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — continue to support adding fluoride to drinking water on the grounds that it helps prevent cavities.
They are supported by the mainstream press, which typically refers to fluoride as a “naturally occurring mineral” and downplays the negative effects of fluoride on children’s health.
Fluoride does occur naturally, but the fluoride added to public drinking water is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production — as documents from the fluoride lawsuit confirmed — sold off to public water supplies.
Research that the ADA, AAP, and mainstream outlets cite to support their claim that fluoridation has a significant impact on dental health is outdated. An updated Cochrane Review published in October 2024 found that adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited dental benefits, if any, especially compared with 50 years ago.
“Fluoridation was thought originally to work both systemically and topically,” said dental researcher Dr. Hardy Limeback, professor emeritus and former head of Preventative Dentistry at University of Toronto. “By swallowing a small amount of fluoride each day it would incorporate into developing teeth of growing children and act as a future reservoir for when the enamel was dissolved by the acid made by bacteria that cause cavities. But there was never enough fluoride to do that.”
Limeback added:
“Eventually researchers showed that fluoridation works topically by building up fluoride in dental plaque, which is then released during demineralization/remineralization cycles by cavity-causing bacteria. The CDC confirmed the topical mechanism was the main mechanism. But with the introduction of so many other sources of fluoride from the 1960s onward (toothpastes, mouthwashes, dental materials), fluoridation had less and less effect to the point that today it had almost no effect.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter
By Cam Wakefield | Reclaim The Net | March 30, 2025
You’d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldn’t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like they’re hunting down a cartel. But that’s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine — two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughter’s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in question—Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of two—had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the school’s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a “malicious communications” charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governor—so presumably knows his way around a budget meeting—asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike. Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about “inflammatory and defamatory” social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause “disharmony.” One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
For the crime of “casting aspersions,” Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parents’ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, who—just to add to the bleakness of it all—has epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you might—just might—vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, “Karen’s upset again” sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charity—presumably a heinous act in today’s climate—when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
“I saw six police officers standing there,” she said. “My first thought was that Sascha was dead.”
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. That’s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience “dystopian,” and, for once, the word isn’t hyperbole. “It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,” he said. “We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. It’s like being detained by police for “vibes.”
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a “nuisance on school property,” despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the school’s defense—such as it is—they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become “upsetting.” Which raises an important question: when did being “upsetting” become a police matter?
What we’re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hill’s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. “The number of officers was necessary,” said a spokesman, “to secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.”
Right. Nothing says “childcare” like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeks—five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transfer—the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, what’s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
It’s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.
Iran will admit students expelled from US as part of Trump’s crackdown on pro-Palestine protests
Press TV – March 30, 2025
Iran’s academic officials have declared the Islamic Republic’s unwavering support for students and academics who have been targeted by the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters on university campuses.
Officials from Iran’s academic institutions said in a joint statement on Sunday that the country’s universities “take pride in extending their support” to students protesting “the crimes of the Zionist regime” in the US.
“The acts of global arrogance in suppressing justice-seeking students and expelling them from American universities after their peaceful protests against the atrocities committed by the Zionist regime against the oppressed people of Palestine have further unveiled the true nature of those who claim to advocate for human rights,” the statement read.
Iran’s universities, it said, are ready to accept students who are being expelled by US immigration officials for showing sympathy for the Palestinian cause.
Iran’s Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution (SCCR), in collaboration with the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Medical Sciences, will facilitate the admission of expelled students into Iranian universities.
President Donald Trump has begun following through on a threat to deport all non-citizen university activists with ties to the pro-Palestine protests, which rocked the US last spring, with students staging daily protests in college campuses across the country for weeks.
The crackdown intensified since US immigration agents arrested Mahmoud Kahlil, a graduate of Columbia University, on March 8. Kahlil, who is being held in an immigration detention center in Louisiana, faces deportation for his role in pro-Palestinian campus protests.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who personally signed off on his arrest, said on Thursday that Washington has revoked at least 300 foreign students’ visas.
“Maybe more than 300 at this point,” he said. “We do it every day, every time I find one of these lunatics.”
Trump officials have accused these students of being “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” of the US.
Anti-genocide activists exposed by pro-Israel groups using facial recognition tech
The Cradle | March 30, 2025
Foreign activists who took part in widespread campus protests against US support for the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza are being exposed by pro-Israel groups using facial recognition technology and tip lines, according to an investigation by AP.
Zionist organization Betar US has reportedly submitted a list of identified protesters to US federal officials. The list was compiled with the help of Eliyahu Hawila, a New York-based software engineer who built a facial recognition tool called NesherAI designed to identify masked protesters.
“It’s a very concerning practice,” said Abed Ayoub, National Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. “Essentially, the administration is outsourcing surveillance.”
Since the return of US President Donald Trump to power, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have detained or deported at least nine foreign university students for their activism in support of Palestine and against the US-Israeli genocide.
“Now they’re using tools of the state to actually go after people,” a Columbia graduate student from South Asia who has been active in protests told AP. “We suddenly feel like we’re being forced to think about our survival.”
“It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa,” State Secretary Marco Rubio said earlier this week when asked about the ongoing crackdown on pro-Palestinian students and academics.
“Please tell everyone you know who is at a university to file complaints about foreign students and faculty who support Hamas,” Elizabeth Rand, president of a group called Mothers Against Campus Antisemitism, said in a 21 January post to more than 60,000 followers on Facebook. It included a link to an ICE tip line.
In early February, messages from a chat group frequented by Israelis living in New York were published online. “Do you know students at Columbia or any other university who are here on a study visa and participated in demonstrations against Israel?” one message said in Hebrew. “If so, now is our time!” the message adds, accompanied by a link to the ICE hotline.
Earlier this week, Axios reported that the White House is threatening to block certain colleges from having any foreign students if it decides too many are involved in protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
ECHR Finds Ukraine Responsible for Odessa Massacre
By Kit Klarenberg | March 30, 2025
On March 13th, a bombshell judgment by the European Court of Human Rights found the Ukrainian government guilty of grave human rights breaches over the May 2nd 2014 Odessa massacre, in which dozens of Russian-speaking anti-Maidan activists were forced into the city’s Trade Unions House and burned alive by violent ultranationalist thugs. The explosive findings unambiguously uncover a concerted conspiracy by Ukrainian authorities to facilitate and exacerbate the grotesque killing, then insulate its perpetrators, and officials and state agencies which helped it happen, from justice.
In all, 42 people were killed and hundreds injured as a result of the blaze, a bloody bookend to the so-called “Maidan revolution” that saw Ukraine’s democratically-elected president Viktor Yanukovych deposed in a Western-orchestrated coup months earlier. Ever since Ukrainian officials and legacy media outlets have consistently framed the deaths as a tragic accident, with some figures even blaming anti-Maidan protesters themselves for starting the blaze. That notion is comprehensively incinerated by the verdict, which was delivered by a team of seven European judges, including a Ukrainian.
The May 2nd 2014 Odessa massacre
“Relevant authorities’ failure to do everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the violence in Odessa… to stop that violence after its outbreak, to ensure timely rescue measures for people trapped in the fire, and to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events” means Kiev was found guilty of egregious European Convention on Human Rights breaches. Moreover, numerous incendiary passages make clear industrial scale “negligence” by officials on the day, and ever after, “went beyond an error of judgment or carelessness.”
For example, the ECHR found deployment of fire engines to the site was “deliberately delayed for 40 minutes” – the local fire station being just one kilometer away – and police stood by passively as the building and its occupants burned, refusing to “help evacuate people… promptly and safely.” Moreover, Ukrainian authorities made “no efforts whatsoever” or “any meaningful attempt” to prevent or disrupt the skirmishes between pro- and anti-Maidan activists that prefaced the deadly inferno, despite knowing in advance such clashes were impending on the day.
While stopping short of charging that Ukrainian authorities actively wished for the anti-Maidan activists trapped in the burning building to die, this conclusion is ineluctable based on the ECHR’s findings. So too the apparent immunity from prosecution for implicated officials and ultranationalist perpetrators, and Kiev’s failure to act on “extensive photographic and video evidence” indicating precisely who was responsible for “firing shots during the clashes,” setting the building ablaze, and “assaulting the fire victims” who managed to escape.
The case was brought by 25 people who lost family members in the Neo-Nazi arson attack and clashes that preceded it, and three who survived the fire “with various injuries”. The ECHR has demanded Ukraine pay them just 15,000 euros each in damages. In an even greater affront to justice, the damning ruling stops short of exposing the full reality of the Odessa slaughter, indicting the Western-supported Neo-Nazi elements responsible, and their intimate ties to the February 2014 Maidan Square false flag sniper massacre.
‘Explicit Order’
Once the Maidan protests commenced in Ukraine in November 2013, tensions began steadily brewing between Odessa’s sizable Russian-speaking population and Ukrainian nationalists within and without the city. As the ECHR ruling notes, “while violent incidents had overall remained rare… the situation was volatile and implied a constant risk of escalation.” In March 2014, anti-Maidan activists set up a tent camp in Kulykove Pole Square, and began calling for a referendum on the establishment of an “Odessa Autonomous Republic”.
The next month, supporters of Odesa Chornomorets and Kharkiv Metalist football clubs announced a rally “For a United Ukraine” on May 2, before a scheduled match. Shortly thereafter, the ECHR records “anti-Maidan posts began to appear on social media describing the event as a Nazi march and calling for people to prevent it.” While branded Russian “disinformation” in the ruling, hooligans associated with both clubs had overt Neo-Nazi sympathies and associations, and well-established reputations for violence. They later formed the notorious Azov Battalion.
Fearing their tent encampment would be attacked, anti-Maidan activists resolved to disrupt the “pro-unity march” before it reached them. The ECHR reveals Ukraine’s security services and cybercrime unit had substantive intelligence indicating “violence, clashes and disorder” were certain on the day. Yet, authorities “ignored the available intelligence and the relevant warning signs”, and undertook no actions or “proper measures” to “stamp out any provocation”, such as implementing “enhanced security in the relevant areas.”
So it was on the afternoon of May 2nd 2014, “as soon as the march began,” anti-Maidan activists confronted the demonstrators, and violent clashes erupted. At roughly 17:45, in the precise manner of the Maidan Square sniper false flag massacre three months earlier, multiple anti-Maidan activists were fatally shot “by someone standing on a nearby balcony”, using “a hunting gun.” Subsequently, “pro-unity protesters… gained the upper hand in the clashes,” and charged towards Kulykove Pole square.
Anti-Maidan activists duly “took refuge” in Trade Unions House, a five-storey building overlooking the square, while their ultranationalist adversaries “started setting fire to the tents.” Gunfire and Molotov cocktails were “reportedly” exchanged by both sides, and before long, the building was ablaze. “Numerous calls” were made to the local fire brigade, including by police, “to no avail.” Mysteriously, its chief had “instructed his staff not to send any fire engines to Kulykove Pole without his explicit order,” so none were dispatched.
Wives and girlfriends of Neo-Nazis prepare Molotov cocktails for the attack
Several people trapped in the building tried to escape by jumping from its upper windows – some survived, but others died. “Video footage shows pro-unity protesters attacking people who had jumped or had fallen,” the ECHR notes. It was not until 20:30 that firefighters finally entered the building and extinguished the blaze. Police then arrested 63 surviving activists “still inside the building or on the roof.” They were released two days later, after a several hundred-strong group of anti-Maidan protesters “stormed the local police station where they were being held.”
‘Serious Defects’
The litany of security failures and industrial scale negligence by authorities on the day was greatly aggravated by “local prosecutors, law enforcement, and military officers” not being “contactable for a large part or all of time [sic],” as they were coincidentally attending a meeting with Ukraine’s Deputy Prosecutor General. The ECHR “found the attitude and passivity of those officials inexplicable,” apparently unwilling to consider the obvious possibility they purposefully made themselves incommunicado to ensure maximum mayhem and bloodshed, while insulating themselves from legal repercussions.
Still, the ECHR ruled “relevant” Ukrainian authorities “had not done everything they reasonably could to prevent the violence” or “what could reasonably be expected of them to save people’s lives,” therefore finding Kiev committed “violations of the substantive aspect of Article 2” of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court also concluded authorities “failed to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events in Odessa” – “a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2”.
Trapped anti-Maidan activists hoping to be rescued
The ECHR’s appraisal of criminal investigations into perpetrators of the Odessa massacre, and all the officials who failed in their most basic duties on May 2nd 2014, was absolutely scathing, the details pointing to a very clear, deliberate state-level coverup. For example, no effort was made to seal off “affected areas of the city centre” in the event’s aftermath. Instead, “the first thing” authorities did “was to send cleaning and maintenance services to those areas,” meaning invaluable evidence was almost inevitably eradicated.
Accordingly, when on-site inspections were finally carried out two weeks later, the probes “produced no meaningful results.” Trade Unions House likewise “remained freely accessible to the public for 17 days after the events,” giving malicious actors plentiful time to manipulate, remove, or plant incriminating evidence at the site. Meanwhile, “many of the suspects absconded.” Several criminal investigations into perpetrators were opened, only to go nowhere, left to expire under Ukraine’s statute of limitations. Other cases that reached trial “remained pending for years”, before being dropped.
This was despite “extensive photographic and video evidence regarding both the clashes in the city centre and the fire,” from which culprits’ identities could be easily discerned. The ECHR had no confidence Ukrainian authorities “made genuine efforts to identify all the perpetrators,” and several forensic reports weren’t released for many years. Elsewhere, the Court noted a criminal investigation of an individual suspected of having shot at anti-Maidan activists was inexplicably discontinued on four separate occasions, on identical grounds.
The ECHR also noted “serious defects” in investigations of officials, “and their role in the events.” Primarily, this took the form of “prohibitive delays” and “significant periods of unexplained inactivity and stagnation” in opening cases. For instance, “although it had never been disputed that the fire service regional head had been responsible for the delayed deployment of fire engines to Kulykove Pole,” no probe into his flagrantly criminal dereliction of duty was launched until almost two years after the massacre.
Similarly, Odessa’s regional police chief not only failed to implement any “contingency plan in the event of mass disorder” according to protocol, but internal documents attesting that security measures had in fact been undertaken were found to have been forged. However, he only became subject to criminal investigation “almost a year later.” Following pre-trial investigation, his case remained pending “for about eight years,” after which he was released from criminal liability, “on the grounds that the charges against him had become time-barred.”
‘Burn Everything’
Wholly unconsidered by the ECHR was the prospect that, far from a freak twist of fate produced by two effectively warring factions clashing in Odessa, the lethal incineration of anti-Maidan activists in May 2014 was an intentional and premeditated act of mass murder, conceived and directed by Kiev’s US-installed far-right government. This interpretation is amply reinforced by testimonies from a Ukrainian parliamentary commission, instituted in the massacre’s immediate aftermath.
The commission found Ukrainian national and regional officials explicitly planned to use far-right activists drawn from the fascist Maidan Self-Defence to violently suppress Odessa’s would-be separatists, and disperse all those camped by Trade Unions House. Moreover, Maidan Self-Defence chief Andriy Parubiy and 500 of his armed and dangerous members were dispatched to the city from Kiev on the eve of the massacre. From 1998 – 2004, Parubiy served as founder and leader of Neo-Nazi paramilitary faction Patriot of Ukraine.
A Patriot of Ukraine leaflet, featuring Andriy Parubiy
He also headed Kiev’s National Security and Defence Council at the time of the Odessa massacre. Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigations immediately began scrutinising Parubiy’s role in the May 2014 events after he was replaced as lead parliamentary speaker, following the country’s 2019 general election. This probe has seemingly come to nothing since. Nonetheless, a year prior a Georgian militant told Israeli documentarians that he engaged in “provocations” in the Odessa massacre under Parubiy’s command, who told him to attack anti-Maidan activists and “burn everything.”
He is one of several Georgian fighters who has openly alleged they were personally responsible for the February 2014 Maidan Square false flag sniper massacre, under the command of Parubiy, other ultranationalist Ukrainian figures, and Mikhael Saakashvili, founder of infamous mercenary brigade Georgian Legion. That slaughter brought about the end of Viktor Yanukovych’s government, and sent Ukraine hurtling towards war with Russia. The Odessa massacre was another key chapter in that morbid saga – and the West’s foremost human rights court has now firmly laid responsibility for the horror at Kiev’s feet.
New German government wants to ban ‘lies’
Remix News | March 28, 2025
The new German government coalition, which is likely to be the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Social Democrats (SPD) is looking to ban “lies,” according to a working paper that emerged from the group “culture and media” between the two parties.
Bild newspaper received a copy of the working paper, which outlines the goal of combating “fake” news on social media, including restrictions on it.
The paper from the CDU and SPD indicates that “disinformation and fake news” threaten democracy.
In fact, the paper argues that freedom of expression does not apply in such circumstances.
Bild contacted a number of constitutional lawyers, and they are highly skeptical of the law.
“Lies are only prohibited if they are punishable, for example in the case of sedition. Otherwise, you can lie,” said Volker Boehme-Neßler, a professor at the University of Oldenburg.
Even determining a lie is a legal complexity.
“It is not an easy question of what a factual claim and what an expression of opinion is. Most courts interpret freedom of expression very broadly,” he added.
He also took aim at a specific part of the working paper, which addresses “hate and agitation.”
He said, “‘hate and agitation’ — these are ‘no legal terms.” He added, “Basically, the spread of hatred in Germany is protected by freedom of expression. An assertion like ‘I hate all politicians,’ does not yet constitute a criminal offense.”
Another law professor from the University of Augsburg, Josef Franz Lindner, said that the “deliberate spreading of false facts is not punishable, not illegal.”
He said that if the new government moves forward with a law against “fake news,” it would represent a grave threat to freedom of speech.
He said he can only warn against a “fake news” offense being created, saying “Ultimately, it would expose any controversial statement to the risk of criminal prosecution.”
It is also worth noting that Friedrich Merz himself, who is likely to be Germany’s next chancellor, openly lied when he said that his party would [not] support an end to the debt brake. Almost immediately after the election, he said the debt brake would be lifted, and that Germany would take on historic amounts of debt.
Lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel, who has a broad range of clients related to internet censorship, says the CDU and SPD’s goal with the new paper is to “intimidate the unpopular social media” content producers. He said that such censorship already lacks a “constitutional basis.”
Some New Tales from the Darkside
Beatings and arrests continue both in the US and the Middle East
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • March 27, 2025
The news cycle over the past week has been dominated by reports and analysis of the Signal group chat involving top national security officials discussing aspects of the recent air strikes which have been directed against the Houthis in Yemen. There are four basic issues that are being examined by both the media and by elected and appointed government officials. First is the apparent ignorance of ordering the strike at all since the panel appeared not to know very much about the target or why the US was escalating the conflict. Second, was the possibly accidental inclusion in the list of participants of a journalist who is closely connected to Zionist Israel, having voluntarily served in the Israeli Army as a prison guard, where he may have tortured Palestinians, and who plausibly is a dual national US-Israeli citizen. Third is the security of the Signal technology itself, which was reportedly initially created to permit such sharing of confidential views online for criminal purposes, but which might be vulnerable to penetration by any professional foreign intelligence service including those of Russia, China, the United Kingdom and, of course, Israel, which would have had a serious interest in what Washington was intending to do in Yemen. Fourth, is the question whether Donald Trump knew about the meeting and approved what was being discussed.
My own experience of secure communications enabling meetings goes back nearly fifty years when nearly every national security-linked facility, including Embassies and military bases, had a so called “bubble” which was enclosed and electronically sealed to prevent outside penetration to learn what was being discussed and by whom. Since that time, there have been huge advances in protecting communications but friends who are still in the intelligence community insist that what is being protected can be made vulnerable by the cyber agencies that exist in various competitive countries that spend billions of dollars to do just that.
The participants in the Signal meeting are now scrambling to make their case that they did nothing wrong, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in particular is arguing that the discussion was not classified even though the issue related to sensitive intelligence regarding the United States plans for escalating a war against a country with which it was not technically at war. The deniers are certainly wrong in making that case, either that or they were incapable of understanding what was on the table. The presence of Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine is more difficult to comprehend as he is no friend of the Trump Administration, but it is now being argued that it was either done absentmindedly by Michael Waltz, the national security director who chaired the meeting, or it was caused by a fit of confusion due to the fact that the “Goldberg” who was supposed to be invited was someone else. In any event, Jeffrey Goldberg first surfaced the story of the Signal meeting and then followed up with a full transcript. Was it all some kind of clever ploy to push Trump into making the decision to go full throttle and attack Iran? It would not be above Netanyahu to arrange something that convoluted and flat out evil and we shall see about Iran soon enough, but certainly Goldberg could only have been there due to manipulation of a situation in which he was pursuing a pro-Israel agenda. Waltz is taking credit for the snafu at the moment but that position might change as he comes under more pressure to resign.
In any event, the Signal story will no doubt be discussed and both embellished and dismissed during the next few days, but one thing it does demonstrate is the relative lack of knowledge that comes across as incompetency on the part of the Trump national security team. And the role of Trump himself will also be hotly debated as he has personally been playing a key role in foreign policy decision making, though so far he is only speaking up to support the work of his subordinates.
Actually there are couple of other stories that surfaced last week that I much prefer. First is the ongoing battle to silence, imprison and actually deport anyone who is critical of Israel or of Jewish group behavior. This has been job number one for the Israel Lobby, which has been eminently successful under both the Joe Biden and Donald Trump administrations, so much so that the sentiment that Israel controls America has been growing among the US public to such an extent that it surfaces regularly.
The Justice Department has reportedly acted on President Trump’s Executive Order on Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism, through the formation of a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. The Task Force’s first priority will be to root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses. It is currently on the prowl, visiting four cities (Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Boston) where it will investigate ten elite universities. It has been suggested that Israeli investigators might well be part of the teams that will actually go into the classrooms, dormitories and administrative buildings on campus, all done without search warrants or probable cause. And the universities have basically surrendered over the issue of freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and regarded by many as the “right” that is most vital if the people are to enjoy fundamental liberties.
A recent arrest of a foreign student took place in Somerville Massachusetts on Tuesday March 25th when Turkish graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk was on her way to meet friends at an Iftar dinner to break their Ramadan fast, but she never made it. Instead, the 30-year-old was arrested and physically restrained by six armed plainclothes immigration officers near her apartment, close to Tufts University’s campus where she was a PhD student. Surveillance cameras show how one officer wearing a hat and hoodie grabbed her arms, causing her to shriek in fear while another confiscated her cell phone. The officers reportedly only showed their badges after Ozturk was restrained with her hands cuffed behind her back. According to the University, she was enrolled in a doctorate program at Tufts University on a valid F-1 visa, which allows international students to pursue full time academic studies, in which she was in good standing. A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesman issued a statement on Wednesday claiming that Ozturk “engaged in activities in support of Hamas, that relishes the killing of Americans” but didn’t specify what those alleged activities were. In fact, friends report that Ozturk has not even been active in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The DHS spokesman never the less pressed on and explained “A visa is a privilege not a right. Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be terminated. This is commonsense security.” Nevertheless, no actual charges have been filed against Ozturk but the State Department has indicated that her visa has been terminated and she has been transferred to the Central Louisiana Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Processing Center in Basile, where other students are also being held.
It is believed that Ozturk’s actual “crime” consisted of having cowritten a March 2024 op-ed in the school’s newspaper where she criticized Tufts’ response to the pro-Palestinian movement, calling for the school to “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide” and also urging divestment of any holdings in Israeli companies and government. Ozturk was to a certain extent a victim of vigilante justice. Her photo and details appear on a website called Canary Mission, run by a Jewish extremist group that says it is dedicated to documenting individuals and organizations “that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.” Tufts University officials said the school had no prior knowledge of the arrest and did not cooperate with it. Several professors, speaking off the record, were shocked and described how many on campus are fearing what comes next.
One final tale comes from a place formerly known as Palestine, where armed Israeli settlers descended upon the Palestinian village of Susiya in the Masafer Yatta region of the occupied West Bank and assaulted Hamdan Ballal. Ballal is the co-director of the film “No Other Land” which recently has been in the news since it won an Oscar in Hollywood for best documentary. As is always the case when Jews assault Arabs, Israeli soldiers were present at the scene and stood by as Ballal was attacked and beaten along with other local residents, only to then detain him and two other Palestinians overnight in a military base, where they endured further abuse from the “Most Moral Army in the World” before being released.
Of course, President Trump did not register a complaint at the treatment of Ballal. What happened to the Palestinian was not just a random encounter. As co-director of a film that documents the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the violent expansion of Israeli settlements in his region, he has used his platform to speak directly and unapologetically about Israeli apartheid and theft. Friends of Israel clearly see that as a threat and they have succeeded in blocking the showing of the documentary in the US, where it has been unable to obtain a distributor. Targeting Ballal is part of a broader strategy by the Israeli government and groups like the settlers of silencing Palestinian cultural figures and truth-tellers, especially those who succeed in establishing prominent narratives worldwide. The underlying message is that if even an award-winning filmmaker isn’t immune to state violence, then Palestinians should rightly walk in fear or get out. The sad part is that international media, which should have recognized something was wrong when Palestinians without global awards and credentials — students, farmers, mothers, teachers — have been arrested and beaten and tortured by Israeli forces every day, ignored their plight. Their stories do not make headlines. Their names are rarely known. In death, all they become is a number, like the tens of thousands who are buried under rubble in Gaza and who will never be commemorated.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
The First Amendment Protects Mahmoud Khalil
By Gary Chartier | The Libertarian Institute | March 26, 2025
One of Donald Trump’s first official actions as president was to sign an executive order designed to protect freedom of expression against government pressure. Soon after, Vice President J.D. Vance issued a vigorous challenge at the Munich Security Conference to speech restrictions in Europe. After years of government assaults on freedom of expression, people who cared about First Amendment values were cautiously optimistic.
Then came the administration’s attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil.
Khalil, a permanent legal resident of the United States who is married to an American citizen and who is soon to be a father, was detained by the government after he participated in protests focused on the plight of people in Gaza.
In a court filing supporting the decision to deport him, the administration maintained that his “presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Obviously, this can’t mean that he was physically impeding the formulation or implementation of foreign policy. He threatened, if he did, to bring about “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” because what he did had the potential to change people’s minds. He was targeted because of the anticipated impact of his actual (and potential) expressive activity.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a similar rationale for Khalil’s deportation. “And if you tell us, when you apply for a visa, ‘I’m coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events,’ that runs counter to the foreign policy interest of the United States of America,” according to the Secretary. “If you had told us that you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa.” (He makes a separate point about Khalil’s involvement in disruptive activities on the Columbia University campus, which I’ll bracket here.)
Rubio’s claim about “the foreign policy interest of the United States” makes sense only if, again, the worry is that the kind of protest in which Khalil was involved risked contributing to changes in policy, or at least signaled Khalil’s personal opposition to the that policy. (Rubio conveniently equates current U.S. foreign policy with “the foreign policy interest of the United States.” But let that slide.)
Khalil has been targeted because of core First Amendment activity: speech and assembly.
Rubio and other defenders of the administration’s position might argue for the legitimacy of Khalil’s deportation by arguing that, as a non-citizen, he’s not protected by the First Amendment. But the Constitution’s language makes no reference to citizens. And there are good reasons for treating it as applicable to Khalil.
The Bill of Rights appears to be intended to apply across the board to those affected by the actions of the U.S. government. Does anyone seriously think that the government could deny non-citizens the protection of the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in civil cases, or claim that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive bail is inapplicable to non-citizens? Unless the Constitution explicitly limits a given safeguard to citizens, we should read it as protecting everyone the government can impact.
And permanent residents, like Khalil, seem especially worthy of constitutional protection. After all, they are not tourists or brief visitors. They have established substantial ties to the United States and have demonstrated that they are good neighbors. They are often on the road to citizenship.
Whatever we judge to be the primary focus of the First Amendment, singling our people for sanctions because of what they say is deeply problematic. When the government targets the nonviolent expression of particular ideas, on anyone’s part, it sends the message that those ideas are disfavored and that others expressing them can expect to be penalized. Deporting Khalil because of the potential impact of his expressive acts exerts a chilling effect on the expression of officially disapproved ideas about the Middle East—by citizens as well as non-citizens.
The content-focused rationale the government has offered for Khalil’s deportation is a rationale it could invoke to attack citizens for what they say, too. A U.S. citizen who writes an op-ed criticizing some aspect of current foreign policy and whose action the government believes could influence others to avoid supporting its position could be penalized in multiple ways. Citizens (probably) can’t be deported for political dissent. However, if the rationale the government has offered here is upheld, they could be denied other discretionary benefits.
The First Amendment should also be read as protecting Khalil from deportation for the content of his speech because it doesn’t primarily or exclusively serve the interests of speakers. At least as important is the protection it offers to listeners.
Restricting listeners’ access to information undermines democracy and the free formation of public opinion. The more people have the chance to encounter varied voices, the more they have the chance to weigh arguments, evaluate insights, and assess factual claims for themselves. A government that can filter what people hear can artificially insulate its policies against critical push-back and keep them from being altered in light of relevant facts and norms. (Consider, for instance, how frequently governments that rush to war try to censor not only stories about specific military actions or espionage techniques but also arguments for peace.)
There’s no Middle East exception to the First Amendment. The administration can underscore its commitment to freedom of expression by not acting as if there were. The Constitution weighs strongly against deporting Khalil on the basis of what he’s said. Freeing him will benefit not only him and his family but also all Americans.
Featured Video
US IRAN TALKS: Who Are the Crazy Ones Here? /Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Wartime internment camps in Australia
National Archives of Australia
World War I
During World War I, for security reasons the Australian Government pursued a comprehensive internment policy against enemy aliens living in Australia.
Initially only those born in countries at war with Australia were classed as enemy aliens, but later this was expanded to include people of enemy nations who were naturalised British subjects, Australian-born descendants of migrants born in enemy nations and others who were thought to pose a threat to Australia’s security.
Australia interned almost 7,000 people during World War I, of whom about 4,500 were enemy aliens and British nationals of German ancestry already resident in Australia.
Records of World War I internment camps
World War II
During World War II, Australian authorities established internment camps for three reasons – to prevent residents from assisting Australia’s enemies, to appease public opinion and to house overseas internees sent to Australia for the duration of the war.
Unlike World War I, the initial aim of internment during the later conflict was to identify and intern those who posed a particular threat to the safety or defence of the country. As the war progressed, however, this policy changed and Japanese residents were interned en masse. In the later years of the war, Germans and Italians were also interned on the basis of nationality, particularly those living in the north of Australia. In all, just over 20 per cent of all Italians resident in Australia were interned. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Diplomats slam US negotiators’ performance in Iran talks
- Trump Refuses Exit Ramp, War with Iran will Continue
- Trump Says US Naval Blockade in Strait of Hormuz Will Begin Shortly
- US, Iran end 21-hour talks without agreement
- US IRAN TALKS: Who Are the Crazy Ones Here? /Lt Col Daniel Davis
- Talks with the US end without a deal over excessive US demands: Iran
- Feeling Better, Getting Worse: How Psychiatric Drugs Create the Illusion They Cure
- ‘Nobody Told Me’: Former Mental Health Patient Calls Out Dangerous Side Effects of Psychiatric Drugs
- Dr. Abu-Sitta: Beirut ‘felt like a day in Shifa Hospital’
- Iran Has Won the War, It Will Be Up to the US to Secure the Peace: Mohammad Marandi
- If Americans Knew
- US-Iran ceasefire negotiations make zero progress – Daily Update
- Pro-Israel ‘Thinktanks’ and Individuals who Influence U.S. Foreign Policy
- Mearsheimer reveals how Israel dictates US policies on Iran, Gaza – video
- After killing 350+, Israel still has a “score to settle” with Lebanon before ceasefire – Daily Update
- Military aid to Israel emerges as the latest political litmus test for Democrats
- The only Palestinian children’s rights organization closes following years-long Israeli campaign against it
- ‘I Can’t Forget the Smell’: Lebanese Reel After Israel Kills Over 300 in Single Day
- DNC Shoots Down Resolutions Calling Out AIPAC and Limiting Arms to Israel
- TCN: Is Israel Blackmailing President Trump?
- Israel killed at least 303 Lebanese yesterday – who were they? Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
Aletho News 