Tag: police state

No Surprise: Burma Army Leads Stilted Elections

The first round of Burma (Myanmar)’s three-phase elections began on December 28, 2025, under a framework imposed by the military junta that seized power in January 2021. With major opposition parties barred, voting canceled in 65 of the country’s 330 townships due to ongoing fighting, and further cancellations expected, the military-aligned Union Solidarity and Development Party is leading, an outcome critics say was predetermined.

The results defy logic. If the people wanted to be ruled by generals, they would not have been fighting the military for the past eight decades in what is widely recognized as the world’s longest-running conflict.

Opposition groups argue the vote is neither free nor fair and serves to legitimize continued military rule through tightly controlled elections that exclude major parties and suppress dissent, prompting several groups to call for a boycott.

The military government said more than six million people voted in the Dec. 28 first phase, claiming a turnout of about 52 percent of eligible voters in participating areas and calling it a success. The Union Election Commission said the USDP won 38 seats in the 330-seat lower house, with results still pending.

Party leader Khin Yi, a former general and police chief closely aligned with junta leader Min Aung Hlaing, was declared the winner in his Naypyitaw constituency. Naypyitaw is the military-built administrative capital established after the coup.

According to a senior USDP official speaking anonymously, the party has secured 88 of the 102 seats contested in the first phase, including 29 constituencies where it ran unopposed. The Shan Nationalities Democratic Party and the Mon Unity Party each won one seat. The official also claimed the USDP captured about 85 percent of contested regional legislature seats, though full results will only be known after later phases.

Myanmar’s parliament consists of two houses with 664 total seats, and the party controlling a combined majority can select the president and form a government. Under the constitution, the military is guaranteed 25 percent of seats in each chamber, giving it decisive built-in power regardless of election outcomes. Only six parties are competing nationwide with any realistic chance of parliamentary influence, with the USDP far ahead of its rivals.

Voting is being held in three phases because of ongoing fighting across the country. The first round covered 102 townships, with additional voting scheduled for Jan. 11 and Jan. 25, while 65 townships are excluded entirely due to conflict. Although thousands of candidates from dozens of parties are nominally contesting seats, political competition remains tightly restricted.

Keep reading

White House Says It Will ‘Dictate’ the Decisions of the Venezuelan Government

The White House on Wednesday claimed that the US would be “dictating” the decisions of the Venezuelan government moving forward, as the Trump administration is attempting to control Venezuela’s oil supply following the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“We’re continuing to be in close coordination with the interim authorities,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, referring to Maduro’s government, which is now led by Acting President Delcy Rodriguez.

Leavitt added that “their decisions are going to continue to be dictated by the United States of America.” In Caracas, Rodriguez and other Venezuelan officials are putting a very different message.

“The government of Venezuela is in charge in our country, and no one else. There is no foreign agent governing Venezuela,” said Rodriguez, who has called for the US to free Maduro so he can return to his position.

In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, Vice President JD Vance said that the US can control Venezuela by deciding where it’s allowed to sell its oil.

“We control the energy resources, and we tell the regime, you’re allowed to sell the oil so long as you serve America’s national interest, you’re not allowed to sell it if you can’t serve America’s national interest,” Vance said.

President Trump is also threatening to bomb Venezuela again and potentially send troops if the government doesn’t do the bidding of the US, and appeared to threaten Rodriguez’s life by saying she would have a fate worse than Maduro if she didn’t fall in line.

On Tuesday night, Trump said that Venezuela will be “turning over” between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil to the US. He said the oil will be “sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.”

Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, said in a statement that it was advancing an oil sale to the US and that it would be similar to deals with Chevron, the US oil firm that has continued to operate in the country. “The process … is based on strictly commercial transactions under terms that are legal, transparent and beneficial for both parties,” PDVSA said.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said that the US will control Venezuela’s oil sales “indefinitely” and will deposit revenues from the deals into US-controlled bank accounts.

In a follow-up post on Wednesday, Trump claimed that under the deal, Venezuela will be purchasing US goods with the money made from the sale. “I have just been informed that Venezuela is going to be purchasing ONLY American Made Products, with the money they receive from our new Oil Deal,” he said.

The president continued, “These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela’s Electric Grid and Energy Facilities. In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner – A wise choice, and a very good thing for the people of Venezuela, and the United States.”

Keep reading

Pakistan Blocks Major VPNs Under New Licensing Rules, Expanding State Control Over Internet Access

Over the past two weeks, internet users in Pakistan have watched their encrypted connections vanish one after another. Beginning December 22, 2025, major VPNs, including Proton VPN, NordVPN, ExpressVPN, Surfshark, Mullvad, Cloudflare WARP, and Psiphon have been systematically blocked across the country, according to Daily Pakistan.

The blackout follows a government licensing framework that, on paper, regulates VPN providers but in practice gives the state the power to decide which privacy tools are permitted.

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) began enforcing its Class Value Added Services (CVAS-Data) licensing rules in November 2025, nearly a year after quietly introducing the policy.

Under these regulations, companies that want to operate legally must install “Legal Interception” compliant hardware and hand it over “to nationally authorized security organizations” at their own expense whenever instructed.

Any VPN not listed as licensed is automatically subject to blocking by domestic internet providers.

Keep reading

California Family Loses Custody Of Daughter After Refusing To Medically “Affirm” Her Transgender Identity

A Ukrainian family in California says Child Welfare removed their teenage daughter from their home and placed them on the child abuse registry after they declined to “affirm” her transgender identity. Speaking to Reduxx under the condition of anonymity, the parents say the removal followed a report filed by their daughter’s psychiatrist without their knowledge.

The mother, who will be referred to as Ellie, told Reduxx that a social worker from Shasta County Child Welfare Services arrived at the family’s home on June 3, 2024, without prior notice. According to Ellie, the worker accused the parents of emotional abuse and demanded access to their daughter, who will be referred to as Maya, without presenting a warrant or court order.

“She just kept saying, ‘You’re emotionally abusing your child,’” Ellie said. “But she had nothing in her hands. No paperwork. Nothing.”

The removal was a dramatic climax following years of instability that Ellie says began in early childhood. After the family immigrated to the United States in 2007, Maya began experiencing anxiety, anger issues, attention difficulties, and emotional dysregulation. Her mental health concerns, which once resulted in a temporary placement in a psychiatric facility, were made worse by the persistent bullying she experienced at school starting in first and second grade. She said the bullying came not only from other students but also from indifferent teachers, and that repeated complaints to school administrators were dismissed.

Keep reading

EU Veterans Rally to Recast the Digital Services Act as Accountability Not Control

It’s not every day that a collection of retired European grandees emerges from Brussels’ revolving doors to tell everyone how misunderstood the European Union is.

Yet here we are, with Bertrand Badré, Margrethe Vestager, Mariya Gabriel, Nicolas Schmit, and Guillaume Klossa linking arms to pen a sentimental defense of the bloc’s new digital commandments.

Their essay, “The Truth About Europe’s Regulation of Digital Platforms,” aims to assure us that Europe’s online rulebook, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), does not constitute censorship. It is “accountability,” they say.

In their telling, the DSA is less a blunt legal instrument than a moral document, a kind of digital Magna Carta designed to civilize Silicon Valley’s chaotic playground.

“There is no content regulation at the EU level,” they wrote, invoking the phrase like a magic spell meant to ward off skeptics.

The laws, they explained, simply make big tech companies “evaluate and mitigate systemic risks” and “act against illegal content.” Nothing to see here, just a little transparency, a dash of democracy protection, and the occasional removal of whatever a member state happens to call “illegal.”

It is the sort of language that can only come from officials who have spent decades describing regulation as liberation.

The letter was a response to a growing chorus of critics, including former US officials, who say Europe’s digital regime gives bureaucrats indirect control over what billions of people can see or say online.

Under the DSA, platforms must scan for “harmful or misleading” content, report their mitigation efforts, and warn users when something gets zapped.

Free speech groups have pointed out that when the law tells companies to “evaluate risks to democracy,” those companies tend to err on the side of deleting anything remotely controversial.

To them, “mitigation” often means mass deletion.

Badré and company brushed this off. “When we require platforms to be transparent about their algorithms, to assess risks to democracy and mental health, to remove clearly illegal content while notifying those affected, we are not censoring,” they wrote.

“We are insisting that companies with unprecedented power over public discourse operate with some measure of public accountability.”

When Europe does it, it is not censorship, it is civic hygiene.

Keep reading

Germany’s “Transparency Act” Lets Regulators Search Media Offices and Platforms Without Warrants

The German government has discovered a clever way to expand its surveillance powers: call it “transparency.” The federal cabinet has approved a bill that would let state agents enter media offices and digital platforms without needing a judge’s permission.

The official justification, ensuring honesty in political advertising, sounds harmless enough until you read the fine print and realize it’s about as transparent as a brick wall.

The “Political Advertising Transparency Act” is described as an effort to align with new EU rules on political ad disclosure.

What it actually does is grant the Bundesnetzagentur, a telecom regulator, search powers usually reserved for criminal investigators.

If the agency suspects a company has failed to file the right paperwork, it could send its people to “inspect” offices without a court order, provided they claim there’s an “imminent danger.”

“Imminent danger” is one of those magic bureaucratic phrases that can mean anything from “credible bomb threat” to “somebody forgot to upload a PDF.”

Once that phrase appears in law, the limits become a matter of interpretation.

Legal experts have warned that the law tramples Germany’s Basic Law, which guarantees the inviolability of the home. For journalists, the stakes are higher.

Confidential sources, ongoing investigations, and protected data could all be exposed to inspection because a regulator feels “concerned” about compliance.

In plain language: this opens the door to state intrusion under the banner of good governance.

Keep reading

Florida Patients Could Lose Medical Marijuana Registrations For Having Open Containers Of Cannabis In Cars Under New Legislation

Carrying an open package of medical marijuana, hemp or THC products, including beverages, in a car, would be illegal and could lead to suspension or possible revocation of a patient’s access to medical marijuana under a bill that’s been filed in the Senate.

Fort Myers Republican Sen. Jonathan Martin filed SB 1056 Monday, eight days before the 2026 regular legislative begins.

Martin’s bill would give law enforcement the green light to search a vehicle based on the “plain smell” of edibles, hemp, marijuana or THC beverages by creating a new statute that provides “legislative intent.” In doing so, the bill aims to blunt the effect of an October 2025 Florida Second District Court of Appeal ruling that the smell of marijuana alone is not enough to establish probable cause for a police search because marijuana no longer is illegal.

Because the ruling was in conflict with one of its previous rulings, the appeals court certified the question of whether the legalization of medical marijuana and hemp in Florida means the “plain smell” doctrine, which allows searches based solely on the smell of marijuana, still is valid. 

Sen. Martin didn’t immediately reply to Florida’s Phoenix’s request for comment on the bill.

The ban on the carry of open medical marijuana products applies to both drivers and passengers, although it wouldn’t apply to paying commercial passengers or passengers on buses or passengers in self-contained motor homes that are longer than 21 feet. The definition of “open container” mirrors the definition of open container for alcohol.

The bill has different penalties for drivers and passengers who break the law.

There are 929,655 medical marijuana patients in Florida, Office of Medical Marijuana Use data show.

Both drivers and passengers who violate the law could be charged with a noncriminal moving traffic violation and suspension of their medical marijuana identification cards, which enable them to buy the product. And both drivers and passengers who repeatedly violate the law could have their access to medical marijuana permanently revoked.

A driver who breaks the law a second time could be imprisoned for up to 90 days and forced to pay up to a $500 fine or both. Jail time for a third offense for a driver would be increased to up to six months and the potential fine upped to $1,000.

Keep reading

Are Newborns Next in Line for Britain’s Digital ID Push?

Congratulations! It’s a boy. Or a girl. Or maybe it’s a biometric data point waiting to happen, ready for tagging and cataloging before it’s even burped.

That’s right, folks: the UK Government is now toying with the idea of slapping digital IDs on babies at birth. Not metaphorically. Literally.

This is the UK, where your child’s first toy might be a state-linked QR code.

Ministers, we are told, have been whispering about extending Keir Starmer’s beloved digital identity scheme to include every single British infant.

But yes, this is real. Cabinet Office minister Josh Simons, who seems to be suffering from a severe case of “government by Black Mirror,” has been conducting private meetings on the topic.

The sort of meetings where you’re told to leave your phone at the door and pretend nothing happened. According to people present, jaws were dropping. Probably because the conversation had leapt from employment verification to baby barcoding faster than you can say “authoritarian drift.”

But don’t worry, Starmer says this is all about simplifying bureaucracy.

Let’s not forget how this all started: the Government insisted, hand on heart, pinky swear, that the digital ID scheme was only about immigration. Stop illegal working. Crack down on dodgy landlords. Check the papers. You know the script.

But now, somehow, without so much as a public debate or even a badly photoshopped leaflet, we’ve leapt from immigration controls to putting every British citizen on a digital leash from cradle to grave.

One source said: “You could see jaws dropping around the room,” The Times reported.

Former Conservative minister Sir David Davis was less diplomatic, describing the scheme as “creeping state surveillance,” and the ministers behind it as “stupid” and dazzled by their own gadgets.

Keep reading

10 convicted of cyberbullying France’s First Lady Brigitte Macron

A Paris court on Jan 5 found 10 people guilty of the cyberharassment of France’s First Lady, Mrs Brigitte Macron, for spreading false claims that she is a transgender woman who was born male.

Mrs Macron and her husband, French President Emmanuel Macron, have long faced such falsehoods, including allegations that she was born under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux – the actual name of her older brother.

The couple’s 24-year age gap has also drawn criticism and barbs, which they largely ignored for years, but have recently begun challenging in court.

The ruling on Jan 5 marks a victory for the Macrons as they pursue a separate high-profile US defamation lawsuit against right-wing influencer and podcaster Candace Owens, who has also claimed Mrs Macron was born male.

The eight men and two women were found guilty of making malicious comments about Mrs Macron’s gender and sexuality, even equating her age difference with her husband to “paedophilia”.

They received a range of sentences. One received a six-month jail sentence without suspension. Others received suspended jail terms of up to eight months.

Keep reading

Zohran Goes to War with Landlords, He Will Possibly Seize Properties

Landlords and property owners in New York City are Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s prime targets.

“If your landlord does not responsibly steward your home, city government will step in,” Zohran said.

Councilwoman Vicki Paladino believes he intends to seize properties. Frivolous complaints will be responded to and taken seriously, as he suggests in the clip below.

In New York City, buildings and other structures can be seized for negligence if they are found to be unsafe or in violation of building and safety codes. The city has strict building and safety codes to protect tenants and the public. If property owners ignore these standards, they risk lawsuits for negligence and unsafe living conditions.

When a building is deemed unsafe, the city may take action to seize it, which can include taking it down or ordering repairs. The city’s legal team will assess the situation and determine the appropriate course of action.

Property owners must comply with building and safety codes to avoid potential legal action and the risk of seizure.

Keep reading